F1P Holdings, LLC v. SS Hibbicon, LLC

── F1P Holdings, LLC v. SS Hibbicon, LLC ── Court: Superior Court of Delaware Date: May 01, 2026 Category: General SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MEGHAN A. ADAMS LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER JUDGE 500 NORTH KING STREET, SUITE 10400 WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801 (302) 255-0634 May 1, 2026 Re: F1P Holdings, LLC v. SS Hibbicon, LLC, et al. Case No. N23C-11-139 MAA CCLD Counsel: The Court has reviewed the Parties’ briefing regarding Defendants’ Motion in limine to Exclude Unproduced Documents. After careful consideration, the Court issues the following ruling: I. Introduction This dispute arises from Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant F1P Holdings, LLC’s (herein “Plaintiff”) alleged failure to produce responsive documents during discovery. Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs SS Hibbicon, LLC and Jerry Shane Hibbeler (herein “Defendants”) now move in limine to preclude Plaintiff from admitting unproduced evidence at trial, which is set to begin May 4, 2026. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion in limine is GRANTED. II. Standard of Review The Supreme Court of Delaware “has long recognized the purpose of discovery is to advance issue formulation, to assist in fact revelation[,] and to reduce the element of surprise at trial.”1 “Discovery abuse has no place in our courts, and the protection of litigants, the public, and the bar demands . . . courts be diligent in promptly and effectively taking corrective action to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every proceeding[.]”2 1 Levy v. Stern, 1996 WL 742818, at *2 (Del. Dec. 20, 1996) (citing Buchanan Serv., Inc. v. Crew, 122 A.2d 914 (Del. Super. 1956)). 2 Holt v. Holt, 472 A.2d 820, 824 (Del. 1984) (citing Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 1).  Superior Court Civil Rule 37 vests a trial court with broad discretion to impose sanctions for discovery violations.3 A trial court is expressly authorized to prohibit a violating party from introducing certain evidence at trial.4 A trial court is also authorized, in lieu of or in addition to express sanction methods outlined in Rule 37, to require a violating party to pay reasonable expenses caused by a discovery violation.5 The court will not require a violating party to pay reasonable expenses, however, where the court finds that the discovery failure “was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.”6 III. Analysis Before the Court discusses the merits of Defendants’ motion in limine, the Parties’ current dispute must be put in context. The parties are no doubt aware discovery has been hotly contested. The completion of discovery, which took over two years, necessitated multiple motions to compel, the assistance of a special magistrate, and a motion for sanctions.7 Discovery culminated in Plaintiff producing three batches of documents to Defendants. Two batches, which collectively comprised almost 85,000 documents, were assigned Bates numbers.8 A third batch, comprising over 50,000 documents obtained from Payroc via subpoena, were not assigned Bates numbers.9 While Bates numbers are not necessarily required when producing documents, the lack of Bates numbers made cross-referencing documents an increasingly difficult task.10 Approximately two months before the date trial was set to begin, Plaintiff then submitted to Defendants Plaintiff’s first proposed exhibit list.11 The list often had descriptions insufficient to identify the intended exhibit, and because over 40% of documents provided to Defendants had no Bates number, Defendants could not verify at least a portion of the proposed exhibits.12 A few weeks later,