Opinion ID: 479181
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: District Court Decisions to Admit and Exclude Evidence

Text: 84 The Employees contend that the district court should not have permitted Ward's expert witness to testify on matters of liability, because Ward previously had indicated that the expert's testimony would be limited to damages issues. At the pretrial conference, the Employees did learn that he would testify regarding liability. Whether to permit witness testimony is a matter peculiarly within the district court's discretion. Forro Precision, Inc. v. IBM, 673 F.2d 1045, 1058 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 2664, 86 L.Ed.2d 280 (1985). The district court concluded that the Employees received sufficient advance notice of the nature of the testimony. The district court's decision was well within its discretion in this case. See id. (witnesses were permitted to testify even though they were not identified until after the trial commenced). 85 The Employees also argue that the court should not have excluded evidence of an opinion written by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. This opinion stated that, due to Honiron's liquidation, Ward had good reason to terminate its Plan at some point, but that Ward impermissibly timed the termination for the purpose of securing PBGC insurance without incurring corporate liability. 86 Although the court did not admit the actual opinion, it accurately summarized the opinion's contents for the jury pursuant to a stipulation between the parties. 15 We find no abuse of discretion. 87 The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED in part, and REVERSED and REMANDED in part. Each party shall bear its own costs. This panel retains jurisdiction over any subsequent proceedings in this action.