Vianix Delaware LLC v. Nuance Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 3801-VCP (Del. Ch. Feb. 9, 2011). See summary of 76-page post-trial decision here.
This latest installment in this case is the third post-trial decision. This third iteration takes 29-pages to address two motions: (1) A motion to reopen the evidentiary record to consider newly discovered evidence; and (2) A motion by the plaintiff to reconsider certain of the conclusions in the Court’s previous opinion. The Court in essence denied both motions and reminded the parties that “the trial is over and the evidence is closed.” The Court also described the instant motion for reargument as in many ways an “attempt to relitigate issues on which it lost at trial.”
The Court’s opinion describes in a thorough manner the reasons why Court of Chancery Rule 60(b)(2) was not satisfied for purposes of reopening the record to include additional evidence.
The Court also observed that Rule 59(f) does not contemplate a reply in support of a motion for reargument absent leave of court. See footnote 53. However the Court considered both the reply and the sur-reply in the interest of fairness to avoid further disputes.
On page 24 of the opinion, the Court quoted from a brief of one of the parties that criticized a portion of the Court’s prior ruling. The brief described in somewhat bold fashion that the Court’s prior holding: “Does not make any logical or rational sense at all.” The Court was restrained and temperate in its explanation of its reasoning that was contrary to the quoted argument.
In essence, this third post-trial opinion was the result of the inability of the parties to agree on a proposed form of final order and judgment to implement the post-trial decision of the Court, but it appears that the third time might be a charm and this might be the final effort required of the trial court in this matter.