Free Order on Motion to Strike - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 14.7 kB
Pages: 2
Date: April 5, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 413 Words, 2,438 Characters
Page Size: 622 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/8610/306.pdf

Download Order on Motion to Strike - District Court of Delaware ( 14.7 kB)


Preview Order on Motion to Strike - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR Document 306 Filed 04/05/2006 Page1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MCKESSON INFORMATION )
SOLUTIONS LLC, )
Plaintiff, i
v. i Civ. No. 04—l258—SLR
THE TRIZETTO GROUP, INC., i
Defendant. i
O R D E R
At Wilmington this EW` day of April, 2006, having reviewed
the various Daubert motions filed by the parties, and the papers
submitted in connection therewith;
IT IS ORDERED that:
I. Plaintiff's motion to exclude and strike the non-
infringement opinions of Dr. Randall Davis (D.I. l8l) is denied.
The court is satisfied that Dr. Davis performed his duties as an
expert on infringement within the bounds of the law and that
plaintiff has had a full and fair opportunity to discover the
bases for Dr. Davis' opinions.l
1The court agrees with defendant that documents created at
the request of attorneys for use by an expert are not
discoverable. However, if not disclosed to plaintiff, such
documents shall not be admitted; moreover, if it appears through
the course of examination of this witness that his opinions are
critically based on such non-disclosed documents, the court will

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR Document 306 Filed O4/05/2006 Page 2 of 2
2. Plaintiff's motion to exclude and/or strike the opinions
of Jesse David, Ph.D. (D.I. 172) is denied. The court is
satisfied that plaintiff has had a full and fair opportunity to
discover the bases for Dr. David’s opinions, and that Dr. David’s
analysis is consistent with the law.
3. Defendant's motion to exclude the expert testimony of
Margaret L. Johnson and Mark A. Musen (D.I. 178) has been
addressed in part by the court's decision resolving the parties’
summary judgment motion practice on infringement. To the extent
the court found that these experts had not provided sufficient
evidence to withstand defendant’s motion for summary judgment of
non—infringement as to the “means for determining" limitation,
defendant's motion to exclude has been mooted. For the remaining
limitations, defendant’s motion to exclude is denied.
4. Defendant’s motion to exclude the expert testimony of
Michael J. Wagner (D.I. 175) is denied. Although this expert
appears to have used facts that ratchet up the damages figure to
an extreme, that is the fodder for cross examination, not for a
Daubert analysis.
reconsider plaintiff's request to preclude such testimony and/or
strike such testimony from the record.
2