Lola Cars International v. Krohn Racing, LLC, C.A. Nos. 44-79-VCN and 4886-VCN (Del. Ch. Apr. 23, 2010), read letter decision here. A summary of the prior post-trial opinion in this case was provided on this blog here.

This letter decision decided a motion to “re-open and supplement the trial record.” The Court of Chancery granted the motion to re-open the trial record in part and denied it in part.

The Court recognized that a motion to reopen the record is a matter for the discretion of the Court and will be allowed when doing so will serve the interests of fairness and substantial justice. The following factors will inform the decision of the Court: (1) The materiality of the evidence to be admitted; (2) The moving party’s ability to have introduced the evidence at trial; (3) The length of time that has passed between the conclusion of trial and the request to reopen the record; (4) The need for judicial efficiencies; and (5) Prejudice to the opposing party. See footnotes 2 through 8.

The Court’s reasoning for granting the motion in part, included the following:

• This case had been on an expedited schedule since its inception and the Court was willing to provide more leeway to submit post-trial evidence on an issue that first came to light in the discovery process that might otherwise have been received earlier if the case were on a more typical schedule.

• The moving party had a reasonable explanation for its failure to acquire the evidence prior to trial.

• The materiality of the evidence outweighs any inconvenience or prejudice to an unmoving party, especially in light of the difficulty of the moving party in procuring the evidence prior to trial.

• The moving party demonstrated that the admission of the proper evidence would serve the interests of justice.

• The proper evidence contradicts the statements made under oath at trial.

Notably, however, some of the offered evidence did not meet the above criteria and was disallowed.