Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01703/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01703-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dennis M. Haskin
Plaintiff
Union Pacific Railroad Company
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS M. HASKIN,

NO. CIV. S-05-1703 LKK/DAD

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

Defendant moves to amend the pretrial order so as to eliminate

any reference to plaintiff being struck in the head. At issue are

three undisputed facts which include language about plaintiff being

struck in the head by the panel door in the locomotive cab in which

plaintiff was working. See Pretrial Order issued January 12, 2007

pgs. 2:8-9; 2:13; 3:7-8. Defendant maintains that whether

plaintiff was hit in the head is a disputed fact, despite the

wording of the pretrial order. For the reasons discussed herein,

the motion to amend is denied.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(e), the final

Case 2:05-cv-01703-LKK -DAD Document 134 Filed 04/06/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

pretrial order “shall control the subsequent course of the action”

and “shall be modified only to prevent manifest injustice.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 16(e). The purpose of the pretrial order is “to guide

the course of the litigation,” and “[o]nce formulated, [it] should

not be changed lightly. . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e), Advisory

Committee Note. A pre-trial order “is not an inexorable decree and

may, under proper circumstances, be modified.” Jeffries v. United

States, 477 F.2d 52, 55 (9th Cir. 1973). 

In the case at bar, a tentative pretrial order was issued

which contained the very wording which defendant now disputes.

Both parties were given ample time to object to the tentative

pretrial order. Defense counsel failed to make any objection

regarding the statements about plaintiff being struck in the head.

It was only after trial had commenced that defense counsel sought

to amend the pretrial order.

Defense counsel informed the court that he acted carelessly

in failing to carefully read the tentative pretrial. Counsel also

represented to the court that he unintentionally failed to add the

words “allegedly” into the undisputed facts section. Defense

counsel’s mistakes are not grounds to grant amendment under Rule

16. Defendant has failed to establish how modification would

prevent “manifest injustice.” Although defendant is now precluded

from arguing that the door did not hit plaintiff, defendant may

still argue that there is no evidence of negligence and/or that

plaintiff was not injured when he was hit. For these reasons,

////

Case 2:05-cv-01703-LKK -DAD Document 134 Filed 04/06/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

defendant’s motion to amend under Rule 16 is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 6, 2007. 

Case 2:05-cv-01703-LKK -DAD Document 134 Filed 04/06/07 Page 3 of 3