Coatney v. Purkhiser

E.D. Kentucky

Coatney v. Purkhiser

104 F.R.D. 118, 1 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 36, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23376

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky

DecidedJanuary 16, 1985

DocketCiv. A. No. 83-19

StatusPublished

This text of 104 F.R.D. 118 (Coatney v. Purkhiser) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coatney v. Purkhiser, 104 F.R.D. 118, 1 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 36, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23376 (E.D. Ky. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

BERTELSMAN, District Judge:

This matter is before the court on the motion of the defendant for a new trial. The defendant asserts as a ground for his motion the fact that the court precluded [119]*119him from calling certain witnesses because he had not listed them in the witness list required by the court’s standard pretrial order.

The court was well within its discretion in making such ruling. If parties could freely call witnesses not listed in response to the court’s pretrial order, we might just as well call it a “pretrial suggestion.” Discretion to prohibit the calling of witnesses under these circumstances exists under both Kentucky and federal law. See, W. Bertelsman & K. Philipps, 6 Kentucky Practice Ky.C.R. 16, p. 340 n. 4 (4th ed. 1984); Dabney v. Montgomery Ward, 692 F.2d 49, 51 (8th Cir.1982) cert. denied, 461 U.S. 957, 103 S.Ct. 2429, 77 L.Ed.2d 1316 (1983); Kozar v. Chesapeake and Ohio Ry., 320 F.Supp. 335, 374 (W.D.Mich.1970), modified on other grounds, 449 F.2d 1238 (6th Cir.1971); Franklin Music Co. v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc., 616 F.2d 528, 539-40 (3rd Cir.1980); Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. M/V Bill Andrews, 624 F.2d 643, 648-49 (5th Cir.1980). See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 16.14 (2d ed. 1984); 6 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1527 (1971).

Here, unlike the situation in Dabney, supra, no excuse was shown for failing to have listed the witnesses in compliance with the pretrial order or otherwise to have advised opposing counsel of their existence. No good cause or excuse was shown by the defendant for failing to comply with the pretrial order. These witnesses were first proffered on the morning of trial, and it would have been unfairly prejudicial to the other side to permit them to be called. For the above reasons, the court being advised,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion of the defendant for a new trial be, and it is, hereby DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

BERTELSMAN, District Judge:

This matter is before the court on the motion of the defendant for a new trial. The defendant asserts as a ground for his motion the fact that the court precluded [119]*119him from calling certain witnesses because he had not listed them in the witness list required by the court’s standard pretrial order.

The court was well within its discretion in making such ruling. If parties could freely call witnesses not listed in response to the court’s pretrial order, we might just as well call it a “pretrial suggestion.” Discretion to prohibit the calling of witnesses under these circumstances exists under both Kentucky and federal law. See, W. Bertelsman & K. Philipps, 6 Kentucky Practice Ky.C.R. 16, p. 340 n. 4 (4th ed. 1984); Dabney v. Montgomery Ward, 692 F.2d 49, 51 (8th Cir.1982) cert. denied, 461 U.S. 957, 103 S.Ct. 2429, 77 L.Ed.2d 1316 (1983); Kozar v. Chesapeake and Ohio Ry., 320 F.Supp. 335, 374 (W.D.Mich.1970), modified on other grounds, 449 F.2d 1238 (6th Cir.1971); Franklin Music Co. v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc., 616 F.2d 528, 539-40 (3rd Cir.1980); Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. M/V Bill Andrews, 624 F.2d 643, 648-49 (5th Cir.1980). See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 16.14 (2d ed. 1984); 6 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1527 (1971).

Here, unlike the situation in Dabney, supra, no excuse was shown for failing to have listed the witnesses in compliance with the pretrial order or otherwise to have advised opposing counsel of their existence. No good cause or excuse was shown by the defendant for failing to comply with the pretrial order. These witnesses were first proffered on the morning of trial, and it would have been unfairly prejudicial to the other side to permit them to be called. For the above reasons, the court being advised,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion of the defendant for a new trial be, and it is, hereby DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 F.R.D. 118, 1 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 36, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coatney-v-purkhiser-kyed-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack