Opinion ID: 688737
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Lisa Audibert's Testimony

Text: 18 Finally, appellants contend that the district court abused its discretion by allowing Lisa Audibert, an eyewitness, to testify. In July, 1991, Audibert was identified by appellees in response to interrogatories as a witness, but not specifically identified as an eyewitness. She was subsequently identified in writing on numerous occasions as a witness and, on at least one occasion, was identified during a deposition as being present at the scene of the accident when it occurred; she was one of the five women with Esposito when she was knocked to the ground. In February, 1992, the pretrial order identified Audibert as an eyewitness. All parties signed the pretrial order. 19 This case came to trial in January, 1994, almost two years after the pretrial order had been submitted to the district court. When Audibert was called to testify about what she saw, appellants objected on the ground that she was not identified as an eyewitness in the July, 1991, interrogatories. The district court ruled that Audibert was properly disclosed as a witness and, as such, would be allowed to testify. While appellants claim that they were severely prejudiced by Audibert being allowed to testify, they never voiced any claims of prejudice or surprise when the district court made its ruling. 20 A district court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 105 S.Ct. 465, 83 L.Ed.2d 450 (1984). Moreover, it almost goes without saying that this type of decision is within the sound discretion of the district court. Jon-T Chems., Inc. v. Freeport Chem. Co., 704 F.2d 1412, 1417 (5th Cir.1983). Given the facts set out above, clearly the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Audibert to testify. 21 We AFFIRM the district court's judgment.