With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the disclosure violation was neither substantially justified nor harmless. 6 . The basis for this number is unclear, although Defendants’ reply brief does identify part of Plaintiff's 56.1 statement evidencing his intention to seek "12,347 damage awards.” PL SJ Reply at 25 (emphasis omitted). 7 . The Court recognizes that Defendants also contend that Plaintiff’s violation-per-license argument is essentially a new version of the same argument that the Court rejected on summary judgment. Def. Reply at 13-14. The Court does not now decide this issue one way or the other. 8 . The cases Plaintiff cites, PI. Opp. at 25, are readily distinguishable from this one and thus do not alter the Court’s analysis. See Psihoyos v. Pearson Educ., Inc., 855 F.Supp.2d 103, 115 (S.D.N.Y.2012) (Oetken, J.) (<HOLDING>); Been v. N.M. Dep’t of Info. Tech., 815

A: holding that statements of a company vice president were admissible against the principal owner of the company under fedrevid 801d2d as an admission made by the partys agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment
B: holding that president of company who breached fiduciary duty in purchasing stock was properly required to pay damages rather than transfer shares back to company
C: holding that the responsibility of another did not absolve the plaintiff of his own responsibility where the plaintiff helped incorporate the company served as vice president and president owned varying levels of stock and possessed authority to hire and fire
D: holding that plaintiffs failure to mention vice president of thirdparty company in initial disclosures was harmless because plaintiffs mentioned president of company and defendants conducted no discovery of company
D.