Timothy Glick v. KF Pecksland LLC
CA 12624-CB
Del. Ch.Nov 17, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs sought to admit three categories of evidence in post-trial briefing after the court denied a motion in limine but allowed post-trial evidentiary objections: (1) transcript and deposition from the Danbury litigation where Klein was sanctioned for taking corporate funds; (2) a New York Attorney General press release and New York Times article about Klein’s guilty plea to a misdemeanor relating to a nursing home he operated; and (3) an unverified complaint (Jones) alleging securities and fraud claims against Klein and related parties.
- Defendants objected under Delaware evidentiary rules (Rules 402, 404, 405, 608, and Rule 613 issues raised by plaintiffs for prior inconsistent statements). The court permitted post-trial briefing and reserved rulings.
- For Rule 404(b) analysis the court applied the five-factor test articulated in Getz (materiality, proper purpose, proof by plain/clear/conclusive evidence, remoteness, and probative v. prejudicial balancing) and the Deshields balancing considerations.
- Court ruled the Danbury trial transcript could not be admitted under Rule 404 but portions of Klein’s Danbury deposition that were prior inconsistent statements were admissible under Rule 613.
- The nursing-home documents (press release and article) and the Jones complaint were excluded: the nursing-home material was barred as extrinsic character evidence; the Jones complaint was inadmissible because it consists of unproven allegations and not plain/clear/conclusive proof and no prior inconsistent statement existed for Rule 613 purposes.
- The court clarified that nothing prevents it from considering Klein’s own trial admissions (e.g., that he pled guilty to a misdemeanor and was sanctioned) or drawing logical inferences from his testimony even where extrinsic documents were excluded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Danbury trial transcript under Rule 404 (other acts) | Use transcript to show modus operandi, intent, and treatment of others’ money as his own | Transcript is extrinsic, prejudicial, and inadmissible under Rules 402/404/608 | Excluded under Rule 404; not material to issue of fraud on Glicks and impermissible character evidence |
| Admissibility of Danbury deposition under Rule 613 (prior inconsistent statements) | Deposition contains admissions inconsistent with trial testimony, so admissible to impeach | Should be excluded as improper extrinsic impeachment | Admissible: specific deposition statements showing inconsistency permitted under Rule 613 |
| Admissibility of nursing-home press release/article (character evidence) | Show Klein’s willingness to lie; impeach credibility | Extrinsic character evidence; prejudicial and inadmissible under Rules 402/404/405/608 | Excluded as impermissible extrinsic evidence of character/trait of dishonesty |
| Admissibility of Jones complaint (other acts and impeachment) | Complaint shows nearly identical deceitful scheme and prior acts; also shows Klein lied about them at trial | Unverified allegations; not plain/clear/conclusive proof; no prior inconsistent statement for Rule 613 | Excluded: insufficient proof for Rule 404(b) and not admissible under Rule 613 (no inconsistent statement) |
Key Cases Cited
- Getz v. State, 538 A.2d 726 (Del. 1988) (articulates five-factor test for admissibility of other acts under Rule 404(b))
- Mercedes-Benz of N. Am. Inc. v. Norman Gershman's Things to Wear, 596 A.2d 1358 (Del. 1991) (applies Getz-style guidelines in civil cases for other-act evidence)
- Deshields v. State, 706 A.2d 502 (Del. 1998) (lists factors to balance probative value against prejudicial effect)
- Morse v. State, 120 A.3d 1 (Del. 2015) (discusses the Getz factors under Delaware Rule of Evidence 404(b))
- Allen v. State, 644 A.2d 982 (Del. 1992) (analogizes remoteness prong to the ten-year limit in Rule 609(b) for impeachment)