It depends how disclosure was done. It’s usual to get the docs. They’re printed, someone uses a black pen to remove sensitive parts that aren’t relevant like patient names, the whole bundle is then photocopied and sent to Sandies lawyers and vice versa.
In large cases e discovery may transfer docs digitally with meta data but I suspect not the case here. Both sides won’t overshare as it were so will only give up when the Court orders them to do. (It’s an area of legal practice that’s improving all the time).
If she did get her hands on a doc with metadata it would already be disclosed and she would have put it to Kate Searle. If she wants to rely on the evidence or point she has to put it to the witness in person where possible.
I’m not 100% certain but I understand IT guy has been called by the defence (reported in the Courier earlier in the week) - probably to confirm to the Court that discovery was done properly this time. NC can ask him but any further requests may delay court etc so maybe not totally worth it for Sandies side.
NC doesn’t have to prove beyond reasonable doubt - she just has to prove that on the balance of possibilities it’s likely they are being less than thorough in their disclosure and it’s unlikely all 6 accidentally failed to disclose. KS’s you can’t prove it statement to NC was very suspect.
But having said all that - with this volcano exploding out of all sorts of fissures - I really don’t know quite what to expect.
Quite like the look of these HR folks. Cannot imagine how people were allowed to go against their advice. That would never fly where I work.