Karum Holdings LLC v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting judgment in favor of defendant in breach of contract action, after granting defendant’s motion in limine (that was filed two months prior to start of scheduled trial) to bar plaintiff from presenting testimony from its Chairman regarding his opinion on calculation of plaintiff’s damages, where Dist. Ct. found that such testimony required specialized knowledge of expert, and where plaintiff had not timely named its Chairman (or anyone else) as expert witness. Plaintiff conceded that such testimony required expert witness, and Ct. rejected plaintiff’s claim that it provided sufficient notice, where: (1) plaintiff had only indicated that Chairman would be fact witness; and (2) duty to disclose witness as expert is not excused when witness who will testify as both fact and expert witness is only identified as fact witness. Also, plaintiff affirmed at two status hearings after close of discovery that it would not have affirmative expert witness at trial and never provided defendant with summary of what Chairman might have said at trial regarding his damages calculations. Moreover,