Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06008/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06008-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 

---

.. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

WILLIAM J. TROWER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Ti:-nth circuit 

DEC 1 3 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) 

) 

INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATORS, ) 

INC., an Indiana corporation, ) 

No. 90-6008 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-0046-R) 

(W. D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This appeal is from a jury verdict in favor of defendant in a 

suit brought by plaintiff for intentional and malicious 

interference with a contract of employment by an employee of the 

defendant corporation. Plaintiff appeals on the grounds that the 

district court erred in excluding an expert witness economist, in 

granting defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of a private 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6008 Document: 010110097244 Date Filed: 12/13/1990 Page: 1 
y 

investigator, in admitting sworn allegations from a personal 

injury petition, and in allowing the admission of evidence of a 

release and settlement agreement from the prior personal injury 

lawsuit. We affirm. 

We review all of these evidentiary rulings to determine 

whether the district court abused its discretion. Alexander Y...!.. 

United States, 849 F.2d 1293, 1301 (10th Cir. 1988). We will 

reverse only if the erroneous admission or exclusion of evidence 

affected "a substantial right of a party." Fed. R. Evid. 103(a). 

See Motive Parts Warehouse Y...!.. Facet Enterprises, 774 F.2d 380, 

395-98 (10th Cir. 1985). 

The district court refused to allow the testimony of an 

economist because the name of this expert witness was not 

exchanged between the parties by the date established by the 

court. We cannot say it is an abuse of discretion for a trial 

judge to establish deadlines for exchanging witness and exhibit 

lists. In this case, the scheduling order entered by the court 

clearly stated that the witness's name was to be listed in the 

letter of transmittal. The economist's name did not appear in 

that letter. 

Moreover, plaintiff has not demonstrated he was prejudiced by 

the exclusion of this witness. He did not make an offer of proof 

as to what the witness would have said if he had been allowed to 

testify. We therefore cannot conclude the plaintiff's substantial 

rights were affected by the exclusion of this witness. 

The district court also excluded the testimony of an 

independent contractor who conducted investigations relating to 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6008 Document: 010110097244 Date Filed: 12/13/1990 Page: 2 
plaintiff's personal injury claim. We cannot say the district 

court abused its discretion in finding the excluded testimony was 

not sufficiently related to plaintiff's claim to meet the 

relevance requirements of the rules of evidence. The proffer of 

the evidence failed to show the relevance of the testimony to the 

claims. 

Plaintiff also argues that the district court erred in 

admitting both sworn allegations from the petition and evidence of 

the release and settlement agreement from the prior personal 

injury lawsuit because their probative value was outweighed by 

their prejudicial effect. It is clear from the record, however, 

that the information contained in these documents was directly 

relevant to the question of whether plaintiff was seeking to 

recover for damages for which he had already been compensated. 

Plaintiff had sufficient opportunities in his examination of 

witnesses and closing argument to minimize any prejudicial effect 

of this evidence. Based on our review of the record, we cannot 

say the probative value of this evidence was substantially 

outweighed by its unfair prejudicial effect. See United States Y..!.. 

Turner, 799 F.2d 627, 630 (10th Cir. 1986). The district court 

did not abuse its discretion in any of the evidentiary rulings on 

appeal. We AFFIRM. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6008 Document: 010110097244 Date Filed: 12/13/1990 Page: 3