Opinion ID: 1867551
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Ambiguity Argument.

Text: Under Thorson's argument, the lack of definitions in the sixty-day order renders it too ambiguous to be enforced because it is a guess as to whether preparation means that all exhibits and witnesses have to be compiled and prepared 60 days before hearing or whether a party merely has to be prepared enough to list what the proposed exhibits will be. It is true these terms provide little guidance to parties attempting to comply with the sixty-day order, but there are more fundamental problems with the order: first, it conflicts with another provision of the same prehearing order that only requires a party to list exhibitsnot to provide the exhibits themselves. That paragraph is entitled Witness and Exhibit Lists and sets out specific requirements for the exchange of information in advance of the hearing: Unless otherwise agreed in writing, a party shall serve a list of proposed witnesses and exhibits to be offered into evidence at hearing upon opposing parties on or before the serving party's case preparation completion date. Additional witnesses or exhibits may be allowed by the presiding deputy only if it is shown that a party is not unfairly surprised by their introduction into evidence. (Emphasis added.) The juxtaposition of this paragraph and the sixty day paragraph in the same order creates confusion about what has to be furnished by the case-completion datea listing of the exhibits and witnesses or delivery of the exhibits themselves. Second, the order fails to clearly override a formal agency rule regarding prehearing production of evidencean issue we address in Division IV.