We need to see the actual motion to know its basis. People get creative in criminal law, too.
The prosecution might be alleging that JB has failed to comply with his mandated discovery obligations. The rules providing for release of information by the prosecution to the defense, are a 2 way street in Florida.
If JB has failed to disclose any matters which are mandated by Rule 3.220 governing discovery,
or if JB has blocked mandated discovery in any way,
the prosecutions' response is going to be a "hardball" tactic like this.
Good for them!
We really need the motion, though.
The prosecutors are dealing with this situation per JB's witness list:
(7) expert witnesses who have not provided a written report
and a curriculum vitae or who are going to testify to test results or give opinions that will have to meet the test set
forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
(from Category A witness definition)
Defense also per the discovery rule, has to provide this:
(ii) reports or statements of experts made in connection with the particular case, including results of
physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons; and..
We need the motion but if you saw a motion to strike the witnesses then yes, it is to prevent their testimony, period.
This is only a guess without viewing the motion but there is a possibility it is based on JB';s failure to provide mandated information under his discovery obligations to the State.
Had he not created such a personally hostile environment, which is different than an adversarial proceeding by nature, there might have been an exchange of courtesy phone calls, instead of this .
jmho along with wild speculation