I don't know for sure, but I thought the principle was that the plaintiff needs to disclose a strategy, because the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and then the defendant can act accordingly. If it were not for the plaintiff's action, there would be no court case, no waste of funds, etc.
Discussion
I was wrong about strategy, it's evidence. In criminal cases, the plaintiff needs to disclose at least the evidence. How often is either side required to disclose a general strategy?
That's all correct AFAIK. And I might be wrong. A defensive strategy depends on the prosecutions strategy, and if they disclose how they disprove it, that gives the prosecution a chance to find a different way of proving the accusation. Maybe they should be required to have one strategy and stick to it and not have iterative back and forth attempts... Yeah, I think I'm wrong.
I doubt the supreme court will rule on that point, they will rule on something else.