In Re Saama Technologies Litigation

COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
LORI W. WILL LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER
VICE CHANCELLOR 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734

February 23, 2026

A. Thompson Bayliss, Esq. Daniel A. Mason, Esq.
Eric A. Veres, Esq. Sabrina M. Hendershot, Esq.
Clara E. Hubbard, Esq. Emily V. Cox, Esq.
Abrams & Bayliss LLP Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton
20 Montchanin Road, Suite 200 & Garrison LLP
Wilmington, Delaware 19807 1313 North Market Street, Suite 806
Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Michael A. Pittenger, Esq.
Matthew F. Davis, Esq.
Megan R. Thomas, Esq.
Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
1313 North Market Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801

RE: In re Saama Technologies Litigation,
Consol. C.A. No. 2022-1045-LWW

Dear Counsel,

I have reviewed the four pending motions in limine to preclude expert reports

or testimony in this matter.1 For the reasons given below, three of the motions are

denied without prejudice. A decision on the fourth motion is deferred.

1
Four other pre-trial motions were addressed separately in a February 18, 2026 bench
ruling. The present motions were set to be argued tomorrow, February 24, 2026, during
the pre-trial conference. Oral argument is unnecessary.
C.A. No. 2022-1045-LWW
February 23, 2026
Page 2 of 4

The parties have filed three motions seeking to exclude existing expert

opinions:

1. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude the Opinions of Brendan
Ballou;2

2. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Reports and Testimony of
Louis Dudney and Jeff Hagins regarding margin data; 3 and

3. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Report and Testimony
of Jeff Hagins regarding SaaS margins and industry reputation. 4

Delaware Rule of Evidence 702 asks that I consider whether the expert’s

testimony will help me as the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a

fact in issue.5 The motions raise various arguments regarding the experts’

methodologies, data sources, and qualifications. For example, the defendants assert

that Mr. Ballou’s opinions regarding private equity incentives are generalized and

lack a discernible methodology. The plaintiff argues that Mr. Dudney and Mr.

Hagins rely on unverified margin spreadsheets created for litigation. And he also

contends that Mr. Hagins lacks specific expertise in the life sciences industry to

properly opine on Saama’s business.

2
Dkts. 352, 372. Reply briefs were also filed. At the time of this decision, the replies were
not yet accepted onto the docket by the Register in Chancery.
3
Dkts. 354, 371.
4
Dkts. 355, 369.
5
Del. R. Evid. 702(a).
C.A. No. 2022-1045-LWW
February 23, 2026
Page 3 of 4

Presently, I cannot say whether this testimony will be helpful to my

understanding. But it might. Consistent with my general approach to pre-trial

motions in limine on expert reports, I decline to prejudge the issues now. The parties

will have ample opportunity to explore these alleged deficiencies on cross-

examination, allowing me to better assess the experts’ positions and how they

interact with other evidence. The motions are therefore denied, without prejudice to

the parties’ ability to challenge the expert opinions and testimony after trial. If an

expert’s analysis lacks support or reliability, I will give it equally little (or no)

weight.6

The fourth motion is the Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude T. Jeffrey

Wilks from Offering Undisclosed Expert Opinions.7 The defendants raise concerns

that Mr. Wilks intends to abandon his disclosed position—that he cannot reach a

conclusion on the proper revenue recognition for the disputed contract—and ambush

them with a new calculation based on testimony from recently disclosed fact

6
See, e.g., Beard Rsch., Inc. v. Kates, 8 A.3d 573, 593 n.122 (Del. Ch. 2010) (declining to
exclude evidence because, in a bench trial, the court can consider the testimony “in light
of any flaws . . . that may have been exposed through cross-examination” (citing Trs. of
Chi. Painters & Decorators Pension, Health & Welfare, & Deferred Sav. Plan Tr. Funds
v. Royal Int’l Drywall & Decorating, Inc., 493 F.3d 782, 788 (7th Cir. 2007))).
7
Dkts. 350, 373.
C.A. No. 2022-1045-LWW
February 23, 2026
Page 4 of 4

witnesses. The plaintiff, however, insists that Mr. Wilks will not offer a new opinion

at trial.

I appreciate the defendants alerting me to this potential issue in advance of

trial, but will defer ruling on it at this time. This motion appears to present a

hypothetical dispute. I decline to preclude evidence that may never be proffered.

I will address this issue if and when a new opinion is offered at trial. The

parties are, of course, bound by the Order Governing Expert Discovery.8 If the

plaintiff attempts to elicit an expert opinion from Mr. Wilks that was not properly

disclosed during expert discovery, the defendants may renew their objection. 9 If that

comes to pass, I may well be inclined to reject any newly offered opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I look forward to speaking with you at tomorrow’s pre-trial conference and

seeing you at trial next week.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Lori W. Will

Lori W. Will
Vice Chancellor

8
Dkt. 246.
9
Cf. Sammons v. Drs. for Emergency Servs., P.A., 913 A.2d 519, 528 (Del. 2006)
(explaining, in the context of a jury trial, that “[p]arties must comply with the discovery
rules by identifying expert witnesses and disclosing the substance of their expected
opinions as a precondition to the admissibility of expert testimony at trial”).