Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence or Reference in Delaware

Background

“A motion in limine is normally used to determine the admissibility of evidence outside the presence of the jury.” (See Torrey Pines Bank v. Byrnes, C.A. No. N12C-01-205 CLS, at *3 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 4, 2013).)

“Such an evidentiary determination is a decision for the trial judge, which will not be reversed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. This Court may also deny a motion in limine if it finds the motion to be premature.” (See id.)

“Motions in limine may [also] be directed toward limiting the subjects about which testimony may be offered, or about which particular witnesses may testify. Motions with this purpose are often targeted on expert witnesses.” (See Coleman v. Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLC, C.A. No. 03C-02-137 RRC, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 8, 2005).)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“In order for evidence to be admissible, it has to be relevant. Relevant evidence is evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” (See Reading In. v. Equip. Leasing Assoc., C.A. No. 02C-10-223 SCD, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 19, 2005).)

“Under the Delaware Rules of Evidence, relevant evidence is any evidence having any tendency to make the existence of a fact in question more or less likely to be true. All relevant evidence is admissible, unless it is excluded by another evidentiary rule or statute, and all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible.” (See Laugelle v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., C.A. N10C-12-054 PRW, at *32-36 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 6, 2014).)

Delaware Rule of Evidence 403 provides that "[t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury . . .” (See Parson v. Blemle, K19C-07-035 NEP, at *6 (Del. Super. Ct. June 24, 2022).)

“[A]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” (See Vick v. Khan, C.A. No. K17C-09-007 NEP, at *12 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 15, 2019).)

“The Delaware Supreme Court has identified five factors that a court must consider when determining the admissibility of expert evidence. These factors include:

1. whether the witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education;
2. whether the evidence offered is otherwise admissible, relevant and reliable;
3. whether the expert's opinion is based upon information reasonably relied upon by experts in the field;
4. whether the specialized knowledge being offered will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue; and
5. whether the expert testimony will create unfair prejudice, confuse the issues or mislead the jury.”

(See Vick v. Khan, C.A. No. K17C-09-007 NEP, at *17-18 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 15, 2019).)

“The trial court has ‘broad latitude’ to determine whether any or all of the Daubert. factors are reasonable measures of reliability in a particular case. . .” (See Gen. Motors Corp. v. Grenier (2009) 981 A.2d 531, 536.)

“The test of reliability is flexible; and the trial court has broad latitude when it decides how to determine reliability.” (See Laugelle v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., C.A. N10C-12-054 PRW, at *8 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 6, 2014).)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The trial judge functions as a gatekeeper for relevant and reliable scientific testimony.” (See Laugelle v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., C.A. N10C-12-054 PRW, at *6 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 6, 2014).)

“The trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and [t]hat standard applies as much to the trial court's decisions about how to determine reliability as to its ultimate conclusion.” (See Gen. Motors Corp. v. Grenier (2009) 981 A.2d 531, 536.)

"A motion in limine is appropriate for evidentiary submissions that clearly ought not be presented to the jury because they clearly would be inadmissible for any purpose. In other instances, it is necessary to defer ruling until during trial, when the judge can better estimate the impact of the evidence." (See Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Apple Inc.,2019 WL 1100471, at *1 (D. Del. Mar. 7, 2019; Venator Materials PLC v. Tronox Ltd., C. A. N19C-05-117 EMD CCLD, at *9 n.50 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 7, 2022).).)

“It is the burden of the party seeking to introduce the expert testimony to establish its admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence.” (See Laugelle v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., C.A. N10C-12-054 PRW, at *6 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 6, 2014).)

“As with an in limine ruling, which may be subject to change as the case unfolds, the trial judge has discretion to defer ruling on evidentiary issues until the evidence is actually offered for admission.” (See Estate of Rae v. Murphy (2008) 956 A.2d 1266, 1272.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “under Delaware Rule of Evidence 702, expert testimony is admissible provided the expert is qualified to testify by virtue of his or her knowledge, skill, experience, training or education and the scientific, technical or other specialized information will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. . ."(See Burkett-Wood v. Haines, C.A. No. 02C-10-263-CLS, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. May 2, 2006).)

It is also well settled that “when its admission is challenged, a trial judge must ensure that expert testimony is both reliable and relevant. Expert testimony is relevant if it assists the fact finder in understand[ing] the evidence or . . . determin[ing] a fact in issue. Reliable expert testimony is premised on scientific or specialized knowledge, which requires the testimony to be grounded in scientific methods and procedures and "supported by appropriate validation—i.e., 'good grounds,' based on what is known.” (See Laugelle v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., C.A. N10C-12-054 PRW, at *5-6 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 6, 2014).)