Plaintiffs sought to nullify a defense verdict in a products liability / highway defect case wherein the automobile involved in the collision had been purchased by defense counsel during the pendency of the litigation. Defense counsel, in the underlying suit, moved to dismiss the claims, and then to limit the testimony of plaintiffs’ experts, based upon the fact that plaintiffs had sold the automobile to a third party, without affording the defendants the opportunity to inspect the vehicle and/or otherwise documenting the vehicle’s condition. Plaintiffs learned only after trial that the car had been purchased by counsel for the defendants. [It appears that the automobile had already been repaired by the time it was acquired by defense counsel.] The Court held that: “A nullity action based on fraud or ill practice is not intended as a substitute for an appeal or as a second chance to prove a claim that was previously denied for failure of proof. The mere failure to disclose information does not necessarily constitute fraud or ill practice. That determination depends upon the nature of the information and the circumstances surrounding the proceeding. Absent a specific discovery request or ‘knowing concealment,’ failing to disclose information that might have been helpful to the opposing party’s case does not constitute fraud or ill practice if with, reasonable diligence, the party could have ascertained the information himself. While defendants’ conduct in purchasing the vehicle unbeknownst to plaintiffs and not disclosing the purchase to the plaintiffs concerns us, we do not find that it deprived plaintiffs of a legal right or render the enforcement of the judgment unconscionable or inequitable. Simply put, nothing defendants did prevented the plaintiffs from locating the car in the 12 years before trial.” See Wright v. Louisiana Power & Light, 06-1181 (La. 3/9/07), 951 So.2d 1058.