Opinion ID: 1381094
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The superior court's denial of appellants' motion for a new trial.

Text: Appellants moved for a new trial pursuant to Civil Rule 59 on the ground of newly discovered evidence. [30] Specifically, appellants pointed to two newly discovered witnesses, Irene Bartee, an employee of ASAG, and Mike Ishihara, a former employee of TTC who allegedly worked on the Uchitel project. Appellants fail to explain how they came to discover Ishihara's identity. It is significant that Elden H. Smith, a witness for appellants, testified at trial that he worked with Ishihara on the Uchitel project. Thus, it appears that Smith was aware of Ishihara's identity prior to trial. It therefore is not unreasonable to conclude that the appellants should have discovered Ishihara's identity prior to trial. Appellants first learned of the witness Bartee through the information contained in Exhibit 18 which TTC failed to produce prior to trial. [31] Since Bartee's testimony concerning the resale to ASAG is relevant to the issue of damages, upon remand Bartee's testimony should be heard.