Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion in Limine. The Defendants sought to preclude the Plaintiff from presenting evidence and expert testimony of damages at trial that were allegedly undisclosed or deficiently supplemented in violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a) and (e). The Defendants further argued that the proposed testimony and reports of Plaintiff’s damages expert was founded upon a basis that did not adhere to the law of case and was therefore not relevant or helpful the trier of fact under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 702.
     The Court first found that the expert’s inability to tie alleged damages to specific breaches of the contract at issue did not undercut the relevance or helpfulness of the expert’s reports and testimony. There were numerous potential breaches of the contract to be determined at trial with potential damages flowing from each. The Defendants did not point to any authority requiring an expert to specifically tie each calculation of damages to a particular alleged legal breach and at least one court found that Rule 702 contains no such requirement. See Audi of Am., Inc. v. Bronsberg & Hughes Pontiac, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-2470, 2018 WL 11229469 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 24, 2018). Therefore, the Court denied that portion of the motion, finding the expert’s reports and proposed testimony to be relevant under Rules 401 and 402 and helpful for purposes of Rule 702.
     The Court also denied the bulk of the Defendants’ motion to exclude damages evidence, finding the Plaintiff’s disclosures regarding loss of enterprise value, preferences, constructively fraudulent transfers, and amounts for fees incurred by its restructuring professional as a result of contract breaches satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. The Plaintiff filed computations for each category of damages and provided the documents or other evidentiary material on which each computation was based.  The Court rejected the Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s inability to break down its loss of enterprise value computation by individual breaches of the contract rendered his evidence of those damages subject to exclusion. The Defendants could not point to any authority for that position and at least one court rejected that theory. See Med. Sales & Consulting Grp. v. Plus Orthopedics USA, Inc., No. 08CV1595 BEN BGS, 2011 WL 1898600, at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 19, 2011). The Court also found that, given the nature of the Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, the computation provided for the restructuring professional’s fees, along with the evidentiary support provided to the Defendants, was sufficient to meet the bar for compliance under Rule 26.
     The Court, however, granted the Defendants’ motion to exclude evidence for lost referral damages, finding the Plaintiff never computed those damages or referenced them during his Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. The Court further found that the Plaintiff offered no justification for the failure to disclose, which would both surprise and prejudice the Defendants. The Court, therefore, granted that portion of the motion in limine, barring the Plaintiff from presenting any testimony or evidence on damages stemming from the loss of physician referrals.