[brief] The Court denied these motions.  Plaintiffs’ argument in opposition to [...]’s motion to dismiss in lieu of filing and answer was that they had not received a copy of the lease as between [...] and [...] and thus could not perform the necessary due diligence to identify [...] and to identify [...]’s alleged potential liability for plaintiffs alleged damages.  Plaintiffs made no mention of their private investigator, [...]’s, comprehensive investigation of the premises, prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations and confirmation that [...] was then occupying leased premises therein.  As a result of plaintiffs’ failing to disclose [...]’s activities in 2017 and 2019 to the Court, the Court was precluded from assessing whether plaintiffs had undertaken the necessary due diligence to sustain their effort to utilize “John Doe” pleading principles to commence an action against [...] after the statute of limitations expired.  Plaintiffs’ failure to disclose [...]’s activities in 2017 and 2019 to the Court resulted in the Court erroneously denying [...]’s motion to dismiss in lieu of filing an answer on the ground that plaintiffs failed to file an action against [...] within the applicable statute of limitations.  In its motion for summary judgment [...] advised the Court that it could not have filed a motion to reargue or a motion for leave to appeal the Court’s February 14, 2020, because plaintiffs withheld information concerning [...]’s activities in 2017 and 2019 from the Court and the parties.  Secondly, [...], at oral argument on January 24, 2020 and February 14, 2020, did not have available plaintiffs’ liability expert, [...]’s opinion that [...]’s alleged potential liability for plaintiffs’ alleged damages could be determined without reference to the very same lease that plaintiffs’ counsel claimed at oral argument was needed to determine [...]’s identity and [...]’s alleged potential liability in this case.  Plaintiffs’ claim that they could not bring a timely action against [...] because they needed to review a copy of [...]’s lease with [...] is not supported by their alleged liability expert’s claim that the identity of any tenant on the premises and the assessment of any alleged tenant’s duty to plaintiffs could be determined without any reference to the lease between [...] and [...].  Thus, plaintiffs’ either needed to review a copy of the lease between [...] and [...] in order to bring a timely action against [...] or they did not.  Plaintiffs cannot have it both ways and therefore plaintiffs did not engage in the necessary due diligence to support their use of “John Doe” pleading in order to bring an action against [...] after the statute of limitations expired.  Plaintiffs’ counsel’s actions in withholding dispositive information from the Court and the parties during motion practice in January and February 2020 prohibited [...] from providing the Court with available evidence, that only plaintiffs then possessed, which would have supported [...]’s claim that plaintiffs did not undertake the necessary due diligence to sustain “John Doe” pleading principals to commence this action against [...] after the statute of limitations expired.  Plaintiffs’ behavior regarding their deliberate nondisclosure of Calderin’s private investigation activities should prompt this Court, in the interests of justice, to reverse the Law Division’s denial of [...]’s motion to dismiss in lieu of answer and motion for summary judgment, both, on statute of limitations grounds, and, upon reversal, the Court should grant [...] summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds.