Opinion ID: 777174
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of the Attempted Bribe

Text: 43 A district court has broad discretion to exclude evidence not disclosed in compliance with its pretrial orders. Nichols v. American Nat'l Ins. Co., 154 F.3d 875, 889 (8th Cir.1998). The district court excluded Nevins's testimony about Ross's alleged attempt to bribe him on the grounds of unfair surprise, stating that the information should have been disclosed as soon as [defense counsel] knew about it. 44 Garner Printing's attempt to use Nevins's testimony about the attempted bribe was not in accordance with the district court's final pretrial order. A pretrial order measures the dimensions of a lawsuit, and a party may not offer evidence or advance theories during trial which violate the terms of a pretrial order. Anderson v. Genuine Parts Co., Inc., 128 F.3d 1267, 1271 (8th Cir.1997) (internal citations omitted). The pretrial order entered by the district court covered the subject matter of witness testimony. In particular, it included a summary of Nevins's testimony which said nothing about Ross attempting to bribe Nevins. 45 Garner Printing purportedly did not learn about Nevins's account of the attempted bribe until after the pretrial order was entered. However, at the point Nevins disclosed his allegation, Garner Printing should have moved to modify the pretrial order. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(e). Instead, it kept the new testimony secret and waited until a crucial moment, the cross-examination of Ross, to drop its bombshell. Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence on the grounds of unfair surprise.