to the jury. In impairing plaintiffs’ ability to respond, therefore, Ford’s late production prejudiced plaintiffs’ rights both to timely discovery and to a fair trial. Ford asserts that, by the time of his September 27 deposition, Cantor had analyzed, charted, and formed opinions on the September 12 material. Ford fails to mention, however, that the motions court’s sanction order limited Cantor’s testimony to opinions rendered before September 7, 1996. Th 9 F.Supp. 595, 599-600 (D.R.I.1996) (ordering a new trial because of inconsistent rulings under the discovery rules). In certain situations, a new trial may obviate the harm caused by a late production by allowing more time for preparation. See, e.g., Freeman v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 675 F.Supp. 877, 889 n. 5 (D.Del.1987) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, in imposing a sanction for failure to
holding that the appropriate sanction was to require the defendant to disclose the nature of the agreement with the witness holding that because the supplementation issue arose in a summary judgment motion and the time before trial would allow the opposition to respond the equities would point to the reopening of discovery as the appropriate sanction holding that arguments not raised in opposition to a motion for summary judgment are waived holding that claims raised for the first time in an opposition to a motion for summary judgment are not properly before a court holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion