Opinion ID: 791581
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion to Amend the Final Pretrial Order

Text: 63 We review a District Court's refusal to amend its pretrial order for abuse of discretion. Petree v. Victor Fluid Power, Inc., 831 F.2d 1191, 1194 (3d Cir.1987).
64 Davis sought in October 2003 to amend the pretrial order to allow him to present evidence that acts of harassment, retaliation, and discrimination continued to occur after the ALJ ordered reinstatement. In denying the motion, the District Court noted, We're talking about amending the complaint, the possible reopening of discovery, and delay of the case that has been far too long delayed. (Pa431.) The court also stated We've got a case that's already been pre-tried. Discovery has been closed. Id. We find no abuse of discretion here. 65 Davis points out that the trial was scheduled for March 2004 and contends that any additional discovery could have been conducted in the remaining four months. However, the addition of Davis' new allegations could have involved not only amendments to the Complaint, but also other problems, including answers from the defendants, the taking of additional deposition testimony, and the reopening of motion practice. Such matters are best left to the District Court, which was well within its discretion to determine that the risk of delay would undermine the orderly and efficient trial of the case. Petree, 831 F.2d at 1194. Moreover, we find that reversal of the District Court's determination is not required to prevent manifest injustice. Id. The District Court did not deprive Davis of his day in court on these new allegations, as he was not precluded from asserting them in a separate complaint. We will therefore affirm the District Court's October 20, 2003, denial of Davis' Motion to Amend. 66