In an ongoing damages case in Delaware, the plaintiff had a Daubert motion to exclude the opinions of the defendant’s rebuttal expert. But the court denied the motion, finding that the expert did not impermissibly exceed the scope of a rebuttal expert, her opinion was reliable, and she did not make a credibility determination of the plaintiff (i.e., an accusation that the plaintiff was untruthful). The defendant also filed a Daubert motion to exclude the opinions of the plaintiff’s expert, and it was granted in part. The court found that a portion of the expert’s report was unreliable as it was ipse dixit (an assertion made but not proved). Also, some of his opinions violated the law of the case, and he relied on the rejected “value creation” theory of damages.

The case is LCT Capital, LLC v. NGL Energy Partners LP, 2022 Del. Super. LEXIS 1448, and a case analysis and full court opinion are available on the BVLaw platform.