Opinion ID: 498731
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Exclusion of Undisclosed Witnesses

Text: 7 The defendant, PEMEX, argues that the court's refusal to allow two witnesses to testify at trial because their names were not listed on the joint pretrial order was an act of manifest injustice, which contradicted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(e) and this Court's holding in Central Distributors, Inv. v. M.E.T., Inc. 1 PEMEX contends that the two witnesses' exclusion effectively bar[red] a meaningful examination of the only real issues present 2 in this case, that is, the purposes of the parties' October 1981 meeting. PEMEX also argues that its failure to list the witnesses' names on the pretrial order was harmless and the result of political considerations between PEMEX and the Oil Workers Union of Mexico. 3 8 Questions concerning both the interpretation of pretrial orders and the exclusion of undisclosed witnesses are reviewable only for abuse of discretion. 4 Because we find no abuse of discretion, we reject the defendant's argument. As in Keyes v. Lauga the defendants [f]rom the outset of this action knew the plaintiff's contentions and [t]he necessity for [Inclan's] and [Casanova's] rebuttal testimony could reasonably have been anticipated. 5 The political considerations between PEMEX and the witnesses' union are unpersuasive reasons for not listing Inclan and Casanova as potential witnesses. PEMEX instructed its attorney not to list Inclan and Casanova as witnesses, and PEMEX must bear the consequences of its strategy. As this Court stated in Keyes v. Lauga:If the defendants knew or should have known that the witnesses were necessary, then the exclusion of those witnesses was not manifestly unjust. In fact, the admission of the two witnesses may well have resulted in manifest injustice to the plaintiffs, for they would not have had time to prepare their own response to those witnesses' testimony. In these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow the defendants to ambush [the plaintiffs] ... by introducing two surprise witnesses whose credibility could not have been attacked by the plaintiffs. 6 9 The trial court's decision did not result in the type of manifest injustice at issue in Central Distributors. There the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed because he failed to introduce competent evidence of damages, and the district court's refusal to amend the pretrial order to allow certain records as evidence of damages was fatal to the plaintiff's case. In the present case, the defendant failed to show how the absence of testimony from Inclan and Casanova similarly was prejudicial. Furthermore, the evidence that the plaintiff sought to introduce in Central Distributors was documentary evidence, not witness testimony, for which the opposing party must prepare a response. 10