I think Antonakakis thought Durham allegations referred only to the Alfa Bank hoax. I think he now understands that the Yotaphone data is also being included.
It's my understanding that Antonakakis was only involved with Alfa Bank data, but this stuff isn't always easy to follow with the way you lawyers write stuff. Lol.
Margot Cleveland's Twitter has info/perspective on today's court rulings.
From the one motion in limine ruling in that Twitter feed, the judge ruled (at this time), Durham may introduce evidence as to "how" the alleged "lie" caused the FBI's investigation to proceed differently than it would have if the truth was told upfront. (Basically showing that the lie was not "innocent" and had some ramifications in how the FBI responded.) Alfa Bank and CIA reps not allowed to testifiy. Seems like the judge still has a few evidentiary motions to consider at this point.
Any testimony about Sussman's knowledge of the accuracy of the info, though, could show that Sussman lied to the FBI because he, purportedly, knew the data did not prove there were communications- which makes sense. Such testimony could lead to opening the door about evidence of the accuracy of the information (and Sussman's knowledge thereof), but the judge ruled the trial is not going to focus on whether the information was accurate or not.
It sounds like Sussman has argued that he is not conceding that there were no communications between Alfa Bank and Trump (Durham's position), but that the information he had at the time may not prove that those communications occured. Sounds like the judge is not going to allow him to make that argument at trial without allowing Durham to offer evidence as to what Sussman knew (or should have known) at the time and whether his knowledge that the info was BS contributed to his lying to the FBI on the client issue - makes sense. This is where the GA Tech guy comes in I am guessing. From The Federalist article, it sounds like, as an expert, he knew the data he was given could not establish that communications occurred. But he was specifically not asked to look at it as an "expert." In response to that he said sure, superficially, it may look like that data could support an allegation that communications occured.