Court Opinion

ID: 9556548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-17 17:06:07.470803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:09:40.606002
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JAMES C. MCCULLEY IV,                   )
                                        )
                                        )
                Plaintiff,              )
                                        )
      v.                                )    C.A. No: S22C-01-019 MHC
                                        )
ROBERT L. THORNTON,                     )
MICHAEL CALABRESE, GINO                 )
SABATINI, SILVERSTOCK WP,               )
LLC, AND SILVERSTOCK                    )
BUILDERS, LLC,                          )
                                        )
                                        )
                                        )
                Defendants.             )

                                     ORDER

                             Submitted: August 4, 2023
                             Decided: August 16, 2023

       Upon Consideration of Defendants’ Motion to Bar Expert Witness,
                                GRANTED.

William J. Rhodunda, Jr., Esquire, Rhodunda, Williams, and Kondraschow,
Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiff.

Jeffrey M. Weiner, Esquire, The Law Offices of Jeffrey M. Weiner, PA,
Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendants.

CONNER, J.
   Before the Court on this 16th day of August 2023, is Defendants’ Motion to Bar

Plaintiff from Calling Robert Sipple as an Expert Witness (the “Motion”). The

Court hereby finds as follows:

   1. After receiving input from the parties, a pretrial scheduling order was

      entered on August 1, 2022. That order made it clear that no deadline could

      be extended without prior approval from this Court. The order provided that

      Plaintiff shall identify and produce all expert witnesses and reports to

      Defendants by February 1, 2023, and Defendants shall do the same by June

      1, 2023.

   2. Plaintiff’s February 1, 2023, deadline came and went without Plaintiff

      producing any expert reports. By not providing an expert, Plaintiff made it

      clear he wished to establish his claim for damages via his own calculations

      and records. Plaintiff claims to be entitled to 10% of the profits obtained on

      Defendants’ project.

   3. Defendants provided their expert reports in a timely manner. One of

      Defendants’ experts, Geoff Langdon, opined it was not possible to verify

      Plaintiff’s claim of damages due to a lack of records. Mr. Langdon further

      determined that Plaintiff’s net income remained relatively unchanged from

      the time he was working with Defendants through the time he stopped

      working with Defendants.

                                         1
    4. On June 30, 2023, Plaintiff produced to Defendants an expert report

       prepared by Robert Sipple.1 In that report, Mr. Sipple opined that Plaintiff’s

       role     in    Defendants’        project      was      akin     to    a     “Development

       Advisor/Consultant.” Mr. Sipple also stated the generally accepted standard

       percentage fee of a person in a similar role to Plaintiff is 3% and that

       percentage has remained the same for the past 15 years.

    5. Plaintiff claims that after reviewing Defendants’ expert report and the

       evolution of discovery in this matter that an expert of his own has become

       essential to establish damages. Plaintiff also claims Mr. Sipple’s report is in

       rebuttal to Mr. Langdon’s report.

    6. Plaintiff cites to three cases to support his argument that his newly provided

       expert should be permitted to testify.2 Overall, the cases Plaintiff cites to

       state exclusion of expert reports is a harsh and rarely employed sanction,

       especially when other options, such as fines, are available. However, each of

       these cases can be distinguished from the matter at hand. In all of the cases

       Plaintiff cited, an expert was needed to establish liability, whereas here, an

       expert is not needed to establish damages. Plaintiff is able to present his case

       using his own calculations and records for damages as originally planned.

1
 Plaintiff produced this report via email and did not file a certificate of service with the Court.
2
 See Drejka v. Hitchens Tire Service Inc., 15 A.3d 1221 (Del. 2010); Dickenson v. Sopa, 2013
WL 3482014 (Del. Super. June 20, 2013), aff'd, 83 A.3d 737 (Del. 2013); Christian v.
Counseling Res. Associates, Inc., 60 A.3d 1083 (Del. 2013).
                                                  2
      7. The Delaware Supreme Court has identified six factors to balance when

         determining a sanction for discovery violations:

                 (1) the extent of the party’s personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice
                 to the adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling orders and
                 respond to discovery; (3) a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the
                 conduct of the party or the attorney was willful or in bad faith; (5) the
                 effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an
                 analysis of alternative sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness of the
                 claim or defense.3

         Based upon all of Plaintiff’s submissions, it is clear to the Court that

         Plaintiff had originally intended to prove his case for damages via his own

         records and calculations. It seems that after Plaintiff reviewed Defendants’

         expert report, Plaintiff determined his personal damages calculations might

         be more challenging to present to a jury, and he should instead proceed with

         an expert of his own. During oral argument the Court expressed concern that

         Plaintiff’s expert was identified long after the deadline. To get around this

         issue, Plaintiff attempts to argue that his expert was not presenting a new

         theory of damages but was instead offering a rebuttal opinion to Defendants’

         expert. After reviewing each of the expert reports, it is clear to the Court that

         Plaintiff is not offering his expert as a rebuttal but is instead presenting an

         entirely new theory of the case, different than his original claim for damages

         in his Complaint.

3
    Drejka, 15 A.3d at 1224.
                                             3
8. Plaintiff presented his theory of the case starting on January 27, 2022, and

   cannot attempt to change it after reviewing Defendants’ expert report

   eighteen months later. Additionally, as this case has been heavily litigated,

   the Court is aware of Plaintiff’s counsel’s dilatoriness requesting discovery

   and responding to discovery. Furthermore, allowing Plaintiff’s expert to

   testify would cause delay. Defendants would need the opportunity to

   produce expert rebuttal and then take additional depositions. Plaintiff has

   also motioned the Court to extend deadlines. The motion has been granted in

   part. However, if the Court permitted Plaintiff to use Robert Sipple at this

   time in the litigation it would cause a major disruption with the dispositive

   motions deadline likely affecting the trial date. Although it appears none of

   Plaintiff’s actions were done in bad faith, it remains clear that Plaintiff long

   missed his deadline and wished to backtrack after Defendants submitted

   their expert report.

9. Not allowing Plaintiff’s expert to testify does not equate to a default

   judgment. Again, Plaintiff remains able to present his theory of damages

   through his testimony. Finally, even though Plaintiff may not personally be

   at fault for determining the best method to prove his case, the other factors

   weigh against allowing Plaintiff’s expert to testify.

                                       4
      10. It is well settled in Delaware that this Court has discretion to resolve

         scheduling issues and control its docket.4 The Court cannot allow Plaintiff to

         ignore clear pretrial scheduling order deadlines in an effort to change his

         theory of the case. The deadline for Plaintiff to submit an expert report came

         five months before Plaintiff decided to provide one. Plaintiff has failed to

         provide any compelling reason as to why the deadline was missed by such

         an extensive amount of time. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Bar

         Plaintiff from Calling Robert Sipple as an Expert Witness is GRANTED.

                IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                   /s/ Mark H. Conner
                                                   Mark H. Conner, Judge

cc: Prothonotary

4
    Coleman v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC, 902 A.2d 1102, 1107 (Del. 2006).
                                              5