Chief Judge Stark grants motion to exclude expert testimony with leave to supplement to address deficiencies.

Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark recently granted-in-part a defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of a damages expert.   Yodlee, Inc. v. Plaid Technologies Inc., C.A. No. 14-1445-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Jan. 27, 2017).  On a number of issues, Judge Stark found that the defendant’s criticism of the expert’s analysis went to the weight to be afforded to it, rather than its admissibility.  With respect to apportionment, though, Judge Stark agreed with the defendant that it would be inappropriate to permit the expert to testify in reliance on statements from plaintiff’s employees who were not disclosed under Rule 26 and subject to deposition.  The Court therefore granted the motion to exclude apportionment testimony, but without prejudice to the plaintiff serving a supplemental expert report addressing the deficiencies and supplementing its Rule 26 disclosures.  Similarly, the Court excluded, without prejudice to supplementing the expert’s report, the expert’s “reasonable royalty analysis as using an impermissible rule-of-thumb profit split.”  The Court explained that the expert’s “failure to expressly account for varying pricing structures and the lack of a sufficiently detailed explanation for how he reached the ‘compromises’ [in the expert report] renders [the expert’s] reasonable royalty analysis, as presently articulated, insufficiently reliable.”

Yodlee, Inc. v. Plaid Technologies Inc., C.A. No. 14-1445-LPS-CJB

%d bloggers like this: