In this ongoing litigation, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants engaged in a wide-ranging conspiracy at both the processor and cooperative levels to fix, stabilize, and artificially depress prices for fluid Grade A milk and to allocate markets within Federal Milk Market Order 1 ("Order 1") among the co-conspirators. The plaintiffs also contended that the prices in Order 1 were suppressed when the processors in Order 1 agreed with the defendants to suppress certain premiums paid to the dairy in exchange for defendants and other alleged co-conspirators' agreement to guarantee and control the supply of milk to conspiring processors. Under the scheduling order, expert discovery closed on February 14, 2012. In January 2014, the court had granted, in part, defendants’ Daubert challenge to one of plaintiffs’ experts. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs forwarded by email to the defendants eleven pages setting forth seven tables and various spreadsheets which included calculations that plaintiffs had not previously disclosed and that purported to "provide calculations in light of the court's Daubert opinion. The defendants sought to strike the untimely revision of the expert opinion, and the court granted the motion. The court considered the four factors set forth in Outley v. City of New York, 837 F.2d 587, 590-91 (2d Cir. 1988) and found that exclusion was the appropriate sanction: (1) the party's explanation for the failure to comply with the discovery order; (2) the importance of the testimony of the precluded witness; (3) the prejudice suffered by the opposing party as a result of having to prepare to meet the new testimony; and (4) the possibility of a continuance. Allen v. Dairy Farmers of Am., No. 5:09-cv-230, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67421 (D. Vt. May 16, 2014).