A short post today to flag another interesting aspect of Judge Williams' opinion in Upsher-Smith Laboratories, LLC v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., C.A. No. 21-1132-GBW (D. Del. July 18, 2024) which Andrew wrote about last week.
The Plaintiff there moved in limine to preclude the defendants' expert from testifying under rule 403 (and most other rules of evidence). The only problem was that this was a bench trial, where 403 is something of an awkward fit, as noted by Judge Williams in denying the motion:
While Rule 403 permits the Court to exclude relevant evidence if its relevance is outweighed by the potential for "unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence," the portion of Rule 403 referring to prejudicial effect and misleading the jury "has no logical application in bench trials." Indeed, USL provides no basis to find that Dr. Tyler's evidence would cause delay or wasted time-this is a bench trial, and any time waste redounds to Zydus.
Id. at 1-2 (internal citations omitted).
I think this is clearest I've seen the rule put in a Delaware decision, which is surprising given the number of bench trials. I'd expect to see it cited quite a bit in the future.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
