In Encite LLC v. Soni, et al., Del. Ch., C.A. No. 2476-VCG (Dec. 13, 2011), Plaintiff Encite LLC moved to allow expert testimony, while also requesting that the Court set aside prior rulings by then-Chancellor Chandler, the presiding judicial officer, that precluded Plaintiff’s use of an expert to testify at trial.
Previously, this Court denied Plaintiff’s request to extend an already expired deadline to produce expert testimony, and to allow expert evidence on damages when the expert report submitted was months late. The Court based its prior ruling on the fact that Plaintiff failed to request an extension of the expert deadline until after the deadline had lapsed. To view this blog’s review of the Court’s prior decision, click here.
In Plaintiff’s recent motion, Plaintiff sought to modify the prior decisions of the Court, based on the fact that since the trial date had moved, Defendants would no longer be prejudiced by allowing Plaintiff to submit expert testimony.
In this ruling, now-presiding Vice Chancellor Glasscock found that the prior decisions of the Court were the “law of the case”, which are controlling of subsequent litigation of the matter. Exceptions to this doctrine will only be allowed if: “(1) the prior ruling was clearly wrong; (2) there has been an important change of circumstances; or (3) equitable concerns render application of the law of the case doctrine inappropriate.”
The Court found that Plaintiff could not demonstrate that these exceptions existed, and accordingly denied Plaintiff’s motion to allow expert testimony based upon the “law of the case” doctrine.