Opinion ID: 406814
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exclusion of Rebuttal Witness

Text: 66 Monsanto claims that the district court erred in refusing to permit Nate McGuire to testify during rebuttal. McGuire was not listed as a defense witness on the final pretrial witness list, and Monsanto gave Spray-Rite only three days notice of its desire to call McGuire. The court ruled that the three day notice did not give Spray-Rite sufficient time to prepare to cross-examine McGuire. Moreover, Monsanto admitted that it could call another witness who had been listed on the pretrial list. The court ruled that permitting McGuire to testify under these circumstances would be manifestly unfair. 67 In ruling on a party's motion to call a witness not included on a pretrial witness list ordered pursuant to rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court should consider four factors: 68 (1) the prejudice or surprise in fact of the party against whom the excluded witnesses would have testified; 69 (2) the ability of that party to cure the prejudice; 70 (3) the extent to which waiver of the rule against calling unlisted witnesses would disrupt the orderly and efficient trial of the case or of other cases in the court; 71 (4) bad faith or willfulness in failing to comply with the court's order. 72 Meyers v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Ass'n, 559 F.2d 894, 904 (3d Cir. 1977), quoted in De Marines v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 580 F.2d 1193, 1202 (3d Cir. 1978). The district court gave due consideration to these factors and concluded that permitting Monsanto to call McGuire would prejudice Spray-Rite because Spray-Rite did not have adequate time to prepare for the witness. Any prejudice to Monsanto engendered by excluding McGuire's testimony could be cured by the testimony of the other available, listed witnesses. Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding McGuire's testimony. Franklin Music Co. v. ABC, 616 F.2d 528 (3d Cir. 1979).