Opinion ID: 399871
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Request for Plans and Specifications

Text: 17 Plaintiff also claims error on the part of the district court for its rejection of plaintiff's request to obtain the plans and specifications of both the Nine-Mile Point Steam Electric Station and the relevant construction involved. The district court rejected plaintiff's request because the plans and specifications were not listed in the final pre-trial order as documents to be utilized at trial. 18 In order to prevail on this point, plaintiff must prove the district court's determination was an abuse of discretion. 5 Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 16 controls pre-trial procedure and provides the district court with broad discretion regarding the formation of the issues for trial. The rule in this Circuit is that (t)he trial judge must be permitted wide latitude in guiding a case through its preparatory stages. His decision as to the extent that pre-trial activity should prevent the introduction of otherwise competent and relevant testimony at trial must not be disturbed unless it is demonstrated that he has clearly abused the broad discretion vested in him by Rule 16. Davis v. Duplantis, 448 F.2d 918, 921 (5th Cir. 1971). See also Clary v. Ocean Drilling and Exploration Co., 609 F.2d 1120 (5th Cir. 1980). 19 Plaintiff concedes that, at best, it did not precisely identify this document (the plans and specifications) in its pre-trial order. Plaintiff claims, however, it did request any and all contracts between Brown & Root, Inc., and Louisiana Power & Light Co. in connection with the suit sued upon herein. The contract, plaintiff argues, incorporated the plans and specifications. 20 Review of the contract reveals that it mentions and discusses the plans and specifications. It does not appear to incorporate them, however. Indeed, article 18 of the contract, which is entitled Complete Agreement, states, The documents comprising this Contract shall consist of the contract document, the general conditions, and the project outline. There is no mention of the plans and specifications in the contract's complete agreement section. 21 The rule in this Circuit is that decisions concerning variance from the pre-trial order are within the sound discretion of the trial judge as interpreter of the pre-trial order, Burdis v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co., 569 F.2d 320, 323 (5th Cir. 1978) citing Bornmann v. Great Southwest General Hospital, Inc., 453 F.2d 616, 625 (5th Cir. 1971). This Court determines the district court's decision relating to the introduction of the plans and specifications was not an abuse of discretion.