In an economic damages case in Delaware, both sides filed a number of motions to exclude expert testimony, evidence, and arguments. In one instance, the court found that a portion of one expert’s report was unreliable because it was ipse dixit. Under Daubert and Rule 702, testimony based on nothing more than the expert’s “because I say so” (ipse dixit) is destined to be excluded. If an expert makes an assertion, it must be substantiated. In this case, the expert was “not permitted to testify to damages based on Plaintiff’s expectation interests in the agreement it purports to have reached with Defendants.” However, the expert was allowed to testify to the general proposition that the nature and extent of services justified higher compensation.
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.