Opinion ID: 4471845
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exclusion of Evidence; Final Pretrial Order

Text: Farley’s third issue, as best we understand it, is that the district court erred (1) in prohibiting him from introducing twenty-four exhibits and (2) with respect to the final pretrial order (PTO). 5 Our review is for abuse of discretion. Prager v. Campbell Cty. Mem’l Hosp., 731 F.3d 1046, 1054 (10th Cir. 2013) (admission or 5 Although unclear, Farley may also be contesting the admission of four of Parson’s exhibits (the letter, a copy of the envelope in which the letter was mailed to the Inola Chamber of Commerce, a letter Farley wrote to Parson, and the promissory note Farley signed on behalf of CDF). But he simply states that Parson had not produced these exhibits during discovery. Even assuming that was the case, Farley does not address (1) his failure to object to the admission of either letter; (2) whether the admission of either letter was plain error, see Fed. R. Evid. 103(e) (“A court may take notice of a plain error affecting a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not properly preserved.”); or (3) whether the admission of the other two exhibits over his objections was harmless, see K-B Trucking Co. v. Riss Int’l Corp., 763 F.2d 1148, 1156 (10th Cir. 1985) (“[E]rror in the admission or exclusion of evidence is harmless if it does not affect the substantial rights of the parties, and the burden of demonstrating that substantial rights were affected rests with the party asserting error.”). We therefore conclude that any such argument Farley may be raising is insufficiently developed to garner appellate review. See Richison, 634 F.3d at 1131; Becker, 494 F.3d at 913 n.6. 12 exclusion of evidence); Koch v. Koch Indus., Inc., 203 F.3d 1202, 1222 (10th Cir. 2000) (pretrial order rulings). “A district court abuses its discretion when it renders an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable judgment.” Prager, 731 F.3d at 1054 (internal quotation marks omitted). Farley’s admission “at the Pretrial Conference [that he never] provided any documents or exhibits to [Parson] in discovery or otherwise” dooms his contention that the district court erred in prohibiting him from introducing twenty-four exhibits. Aplee. Supp. App., Vol. 1 at 2. Parson objected to the admissibility of those exhibits, and the district court ruled that Farley had not shown “his failure to provide the exhibits before the Pretrial Conference was substantially justified or harmless,” id. Accordingly, the district court prohibited Farley from using any of those exhibits based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1), which provides: “If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence . . . at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” We see no abuse of discretion in the court’s ruling. Farley argues that the district court erred in entering the final PTO despite his refusal to sign it. He claims he refused to sign because Parson’s attorney changed what Farley had agreed to, which was that he would present the twenty-four exhibits. But in the draft PTO Parson submitted to the court, Parson objected to all of those exhibits. In a separate filing, Parson notified the court that he had discussed the proposed PTO with Farley, but Farley did “not want to do anymore and had nothing 13 to add to the proposed PTO and did not want to sign it.” Aplee. Supp. App., Vol. 1 at 4. Instead, Farley was “standing by” his motion to “re-urge” a prior motion to dismiss the case and “in his words cancel [the] jury trial,” and would await the court’s ruling on that motion. Id. Parson also reported that Farley had agreed that Parson should submit the proposed PTO to the court and inform the court of his refusal to sign it “and that he did not want to file his own version of the Pretrial Order.” Id. Given Farley’s reported agreement to Parson’s proposed course of conduct, which Farley has not challenged on appeal, and in light of our affirmance of the district court’s ruling excluding the twenty-four exhibits, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by filing the final PTO.