Opinion ID: 750582
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scope of the Pretrial Order

Text: 19 [A] district court has discretion to exclude from trial issues and claims not set forth in the pretrial order. Rios v. Bigler, 67 F.3d 1543, 1549 (10th Cir.1995). Thus, we review the district court's decision for abuse of discretion. Id. 20 A review of the pretrial order filed June 19, 1996 reveals that pro-rating as such is not mentioned anywhere in the pretrial order. Moreover, the Reductions and Limitations clause is not mentioned in any way in either the Issues of Fact or the Issues of Law. The only reference to the Reductions and Limitations clause is found within Centennial's own Factual Contentions and Legal Theories. In that portion of the pretrial order, Centennial wrote: 21 The defendant's policy also contains a provision as to reductions and limitations that benefits payable under the defendant's policy shall be reduced by any amount payable under another plan, such as the plaintiff's plan. Therefore, defendant's liability is reduced by all sums paid by LINA. 22 Aplt.App. at 0744. 23 Centennial contends this reference is sufficient to preserve the pro-rating issue for trial. However, the district court found that Centennial's reference to the Reductions and Limitations clause within its Factual Contentions and Legal Theories, and without any reference to pro-rating, was insufficient to preserve the pro-rating issue. Even if some other district court at some other time may have found Centennial's reference sufficient to preserve the issue, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in excluding it.