As for the plaintiffs , they submitted, as stated, many requests, responses and pleadings, a significant part of which were without substantive justification. The plaintiffs, through their counsel, often argued with court decisions, while filing repeated motions and attempting to make "allocation improvements" in relation to the motions, some of which were rejected.
In the meantime, only during the evidentiary hearings did the plaintiffs petition to submit tapes that were in their possession. This was against the background of their claim that between their counsel and the transfer of the Goren hearing place, a procedural arrangement for the discovery of recordings at the evidentiary stage was perfected.
On 11 October 2021, I rejected their request. An application for leave to appeal against the decision to the Supreme Court was also rejected (decision of December 30, 2021 in Civil Appeal Authority 7396/21). The plaintiffs did not accept these decisions, and on February 17, 2022, in their response to defendants 1 and 4's request regarding the disclosure of the recordings in the hands of the parties, the plaintiffs argued that this court and the Supreme Court "legitimize the express denial of a procedural arrangement by a party ..." (paragraph 12 of the response). In my subsequent decision from that day, I noted, inter alia, that the plaintiffs are entitled to be dissatisfied with judicial decisions, but that the way to express criticism on the matter should not be expressed in the judicial proceeding (see the plaintiffs' apology in the notice they filed on February 21, 2022; this is not the only apology submitted by the plaintiffs in the proceeding).
Although the plaintiffs should have internalized the necessity of accepting the judicial decisions made regarding their claim for a procedural arrangement for the discovery of recordings, they did not do so. Various motions were filed regarding the preliminary proceedings, including with regard to the disclosure of the recordings. In addition to the motions filed by defendants 1 and 4 (on January 3, 2022 and January 31, 2022), on November 7, 2022, the plaintiffs filed another motion, in which they again petitioned to give effect to a decision for a prima facie procedural arrangement between them and defendants 1 and 4, concerning the disclosure of the documents and recordings in their possession. In my decision on the same day, I determined that at this stage I do not intend to give judicial force to agreements relating to the disclosure of documents, since the date for doing so has long since passed and it certainly should not be needed after evidence has been submitted.