Reybold Venture Group v. Tesla Industries, Inc.

      IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

REYBOLD VENTURE GROUP,                     )
XVI, LLC,                                  )
                                           )
                  Plaintiff,               )   C.A. No.: N23C-12-049 FJJ
                                           )
        v.                                 )
                                           )
TESLA INDUSTRIES, INC.,                    )
                                           )
                                           )
                  Defendant.               )

                               Submitted: May 9, 2025
                                Decided: June 5, 2025

                                      ORDER
              On Defendant’s Motion to Preclude Jeff Shahan’s Testimony

   Having considered Defendant’s motion to exclude the report and testimony of

plaintiff’s expert Jeff Shahan and Plaintiff’s response to the motion it appears to the

Court that:

1. In this case, Plaintiff seeks damages from Defendant due to Defendant’s breach

   of a commercial lease involving property at Suite 106-108 at 6 Bellecore Drive,

   New Castle, Delaware. One of the issues between the parties is whether Plaintiff

   took reasonable steps to relet the property after Defendant breached the lease and

   was removed from the property. In support of its claim that it acted reasonably

   to relet, Plaintiff has produced an expert report from Jeff Shahan who Plaintiff



                                          1
    posits is an expert real estate broker who can provide testimony regarding the

    reasonableness of Plaintiff’s action in reletting the property.

2. Defendant has moved to exclude Shahan. Defendant asserts that this Court must

    exclude Shahan for the following reasons: 1) Shahan’s report is inadmissible

    because it is undated and therefore unreliable; 2) Shahan’s report is inadmissible

    because it is not addressed to anyone and is, therefore, unreliable; 3) Shahan’s

    report is inadmissible because it is unsigned and is, therefore, unreliable; 4)

    Shahan’s report is inadmissible because it is a draft version; and 5) Shahan’s

    report is inadmissible because it is based on facts that are not in evidence and is,

    therefore, unreliable and irrelevant.

3. Delaware Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony.

    Delaware has adopted the holdings in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals

    Inc.1 and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael2 to interpret the Delaware Rule.3

    In Daubert and Kumho, the United States Supreme Court interpreted and

    explained Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which is “substantially similar” to the

    Delaware Rule.4 Delaware Rule 702 states:

        A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
        training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or
        otherwise, if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized

1
  509 U.S. 579 (1993).
2
  526 U.S. 137 (1993).
3
  Bowen v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 906 A.2d 787, 794 (Del. 2006) (citing M.G. Bancorporation, Inc. v.
Le Beau, 737 A.2d 513, 522 (Del. 1999)).
4
  Smack-Dixon v. Walmart Inc., 2021 WL 3012056 (Del. Super. Ct. Jul. 16, 2021) (citing Bowen, 906 A.2d at 794).

                                                       2
        knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
        determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts
        or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and
        methods; and (d) the witness has applied the principles and methods
        reliably to the facts of the case.5

To be admissible, expert testimony must be “relevant and reliable.”6 To make this

determination, the trial judge engages in a five-step analysis.7 This analysis provides

that the trial judge finds that:

        (1) the witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
            experience, training, or education;
        (2) the evidence is relevant;
        (3) the expert’s opinion is based on information reasonably relied upon
            by experts in the particular field;
        (4) the expert testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand the
            evidence or to determine a fact in issue; and
        (5) the expert testimony will not create unfair prejudice or confuse or
            mislead the jury.8

The burden of establishing that the expert testimony is admissible lies with its

proponent by a preponderance of the evidence.9 “A strong preference exists” for

admitting expert opinions “when they will assist the trier of fact in understanding

the relevant facts or the evidence.”10




5
  D.R.E. 702; see also Smack-Dixon, 2021 WL 3012056 (Del. Super. 2021).
6
  Daubert, 508 U.S. at 597.
7
  Smack-Dixon, 2021 WL 3012056 at *2 (citing Bowen, 906 A.2d at 795)).
8
  Id.
9
  Id.
10
   Smack-Dixon, 2021 WL 3012056 at * 2 (quoting Delaware ex. Rel. French v. Card Compliant, LLC, 2018 WL
4151288, *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 29, 2018) (quoting Norman v. All About Women, P.A., 193 A.2d 726, 730 (Del.
2018)).

                                                       3
4. Defendant may very well be correct that the report is inadmissible, but

   Defendant’s reasoning is incorrect. The report is hearsay. But this does not

   answer the questions as to whether Shahan can testify to the contents of his

   Report. The Court finds that:

   (1) Shahan is qualified by experience and training to render the opinions he has
       rendered; (there has been no objection to Shahan’s qualifications)
   (2) Shahan’s testimony is relevant to the issues to be tried between the parties;
   (3) The opinion is based on information reasonable relied upon by experts in this
       field;
   (4) Shahan’s testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or
       to determine a fact at issue; and
   (5) Shahan’s testimony will not create unfair prejudice or confuse or mislead the
       jury.

5. The arguments raised by the Defendant go not to the admissibility of Shahan’s

   opinion but to its weight. In exercising its gate keeping function under Daubert

   the Court is satisfied that Shahan should be permitted to testify. Defendant’s

   argument that the report is inadmissible because it is not based on facts in

   evidence is not consistent with the facts advanced by Plaintiff in pretrial

   proceedings. The Court will entertain objections to Shahan’s testimony at trial if

   it turns out that is opinions are not based on the facts as developed. For now

   Defendant’s Motion to Preclude Shahan’s testimony is DENIED.




                                         4
IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                    /s/ Francis J. Jones, Jr.
                                    Francis J. Jones, Jr., Judge


cc:   File&ServeXpress
      Jeffrey M. Weiner, Esq.
      Joseph J. Bellew, Esq.




                                5