Litigation

Expert Testimony Restricted as Untimely

By Francis G. X. Pileggi, Esq.

Stone v. Stant, 2008 Del. Ch. LEXIS 138 (Del. Ch., Oct. 2, 2008), read opinion here, The Chancery Court in this case applied Rule 26(e)(1)(B) to bar the admission of portions of the testimony of an expert that were not within the scope of the expert's report. That expert report was not updated and the barred testimony was not included as part of the testimony in the discovery deposition of the expert either.

At footnote 3, the Court cited to prior Chancery Court decisions that upheld similar exclusions of undisclosed expert testimony: Sammons v. Doctors for Emergency Services, P.A. [see blog summary here] and Williams v. White Oak Builders, Inc. [see blog summary here.] See also prior decisions in this case at the following citations: Stone v. Stant, 2008 Del. Ch. LEXIS 94 (July 18, 2008) (Rule 59(f) Motion to Reargue granted on issue of trustee using fees of trust to defend the claims); See also Stone v. Stant, 2006 Del. Ch. LEXIS 174 (Del. Ch., Sept. 22, 2006).

Full post as published by Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog on October 18, 2008 (boomark / email).