Summary:
The defendants sought to preclude the plaintiff from presenting evidence and expert testimony on damages at trial, arguing that the evidence was allegedly undisclosed or insufficiently supplemented, violating Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a) and (e). They also argued that the expert testimony from Stephen B. Darr was not relevant or helpful under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 702.
The court denied the motion to exclude Stephen B. Darr's testimony and reports, finding that Darr's analysis of Randolph Health's changing enterprise value was relevant and helpful for understanding complex issues, thus meeting the requirements of Rules 401, 402, and 702.
The court also found that there was not a sufficient basis to exclude the evidence due to nondisclosure, as the plaintiff had taken sufficient measures to comply with Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) by providing itemized statements and supporting documents for damages related to the loss of enterprise value and fees.
However, the court agreed with the defendants that the plaintiff failed to provide a computation or supporting evidence for damages related to the loss of physician referrals and procedures. As a result, the court granted the motion to exclude evidence and testimony regarding these damages, citing non-compliance with Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) and considering factors of surprise, prejudice, and disruption.
Commentary:
This opinion could also be captioned as In re Randolph Hospital III, as there have been at least two prior decisions issued in this case- see In re Randolph Hospital I & II.
Blog comments