Delaware Court of Chancery Denies Expert Opinion Motions

COURT OF CHA NCERY OF THE STATE OF DEL AWARE L ORI W. W I LL V ICE C HANCELLO R L EONARD L. W ILLIAMS J USTICE C ENTER 500 N. K ING S TREET, S UITE 11 400 W ILMI NG TON, D ELAWARE 19801-373 4 February 23, 2026 A. Thompson Baylis s, Esq. Eric A. Ve res, Esq. Clara E. Hubbard, Esq. Abrams & B ayliss LLP 20 Montcha nin Road, Suite 200 Wilmington, Delaware 19807 Daniel A. Mason, Esq. Sabrina M. Hendershot, E sq. Emily V. Cox, Esq. Paul, We iss, Rifkind, Wharton & G arrison L LP 1313 North Ma rket Street, Suite 806 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Michael A. Pittenger, Esq. Matthew F. Davis, Esq. Megan R. Thomas, Esq. Potter Ande rson & Corroon LLP 1313 North Ma rket Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801 RE: In r e Saama Technologies Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 2022-1045-LWW Dear C ounsel, I have reviewed the f our pending motions in limine to preclude expe rt reports or testimony in th is matter. 1 For the reas ons given below, three of the motions are denied without pre judice. A de cision on the fourth mot ion is deferred. 1 Four other pre-trial motions were addressed separately in a February 18, 2026 bench ruling. The present motions were set to be argued tomorrow, February 24, 2026, during the pre-trial conference. Oral argument is unnecessary.

C.A. No. 2022-1045-LWW February 2 3, 2026 Page 2 of 4 The parties have filed three motions seeking to exclude existing expert opinions: 1. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclud e the Opinions of B rendan Ballou; 2 2. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Reports and Testimony of Louis Dudney a nd Jeff Hagins regarding m argin data; 3 and 3. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert R eport and T estimony of Jeff Hagins regarding Saa S margins and industry reputation. 4 Delaware Rule of Evidence 702 asks that I consider whether the expert’s testimony will help me as the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue. 5 The motions raise various arguments regarding the expe rts ’ methodologies, data sources, and qualifications. For example, the defendants as sert that Mr. Ballou ’ s opinions regardi ng private equity incentives are generalized a nd lack a dis cernible methodology. The plaintiff argues that Mr. Dudney and Mr. Hagins rely on unverified ma rgin spreadsh eets created for litigation. And he a lso contends that M r. Hagins lacks specific expertise in the life sciences industry to properly opine on Saama ’ s business. 2 Dkts. 352, 372. Reply briefs were also filed. At the time of this decision, the replies were not yet accepted onto the docket by the Register in Chancery. 3 Dkts. 354, 371. 4 Dkts. 355, 369. 5 Del. R. Evid. 702(a).

C.A. No. 2022-1045-LWW February 2 3, 2026 Page 3 of 4 Presently, I cannot s ay whether this tes timony will be helpful to my understanding. But it might. Cons istent with my general approach to pre -trial motions in limine on expe rt r epo rts, I decline to prejudge the is sues now. The parties will have ample o pportunity to e xplore these alleged deficiencies on cros s - examination, allow ing me to bet ter asses s the experts’ positions a nd h ow they interact with other evidence. The motions a re therefore denied, without prejudice to the parties ’ ability to challenge the expert opinions a nd testimony a fter tr ial. If an expert ’ s a nalysis lacks support or reliabil ity, I will give it equall y little (or no) weight. 6 The fourth motion is the Defendants ’ Motion in Lim ine to P reclude T. Jeffrey Wilks from Of fering Undisclosed Ex pert Opinions. 7 The defendants raise concerns that Mr. Wilks intends to abandon his disclosed pos ition — that he ca nnot reach a conclusion on the proper reve nue recognitio n for the disputed contract — and ambus h them with a new ca lculation based on testimony from recently disclosed fact 6 See, e.g., Beard Rsch., Inc. v. Kates, 8 A.3d 573, 593 n.122 (Del. Ch. 2010) (declining to exclude evidence because, in a bench trial, the court can consider the testimony “in light of any flaws... that may have been exposed through cross - examination” (cit ing Trs. of Chi. Painters & Decorators Pension, Health & Welfare, & Deferred Sav. Plan Tr. Funds v. Royal Int’l Drywall & Decorating, Inc., 493 F.3d 782, 788 (7th Cir. 2007))). 7 Dkts. 350, 373.

C.A. No. 2022-1045-LWW February 2 3, 2026 Page 4 of 4 witnesse s. The plaintiff, however, insists that Mr. Wilks will not offer a new opinion at trial. I a ppreciate the defendants alerting me to this potential issue in advance of trial, but will defe r ruling on it a t this time. This motion appears to pres ent a hypothetical dispute. I decline to preclude evidenc e that may ne ver be proffered. I will add ress this iss ue if and whe n a ne w opinion is of fered a t t rial. The parties are, of course, bound by the Order Governing Expert Discovery. 8 If the plaintiff attem pts to elici t an e xpert opinio n from M r. Wilks that was not properl y disclosed during expe rt discovery, the defendants may renew their objectio n. 9 If that comes to pass, I may well be inclined to rejec t any newly off ered opinio n. IT IS SO OR DERED. I look forward to s peaking with you at to morrow’s pre - trial con ference and seeing you at trial next wee k. Sincerely you rs, /s/ Lori W. Will Lori W. Will Vice Chancellor 8 Dkt. 246. 9 Cf. Sammons v. Drs. for Emergency Servs., P.A., 913 A.2d 519, 528 (Del. 2006) (explaining, in the context of a jury tr ial, that “ [p] arties must comply with the discover y rules by identifying expert witnesses and disclosing the substance of their expected opinions as a precondition to the admissibility of expert testimony at tria l ”).