Woods v. Burlington Northern R. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 August 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-7510,84-7510
• Citation: 768 F.2d 1287
• Parties: 18 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1052 Alan WOODS and Cara Woods, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 1287

768 F.2d 1287

18 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1052

Alan WOODS and Cara Woods, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 84-7510.

United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 16, 1985.

L. Vastine Stabler, Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O'Neil, Kenneth D. Davis, Birmingham, Ala., for defendants-appellants.

Mac Parsons, Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, William J. Wynn, Carlton T. Wynn, Francis H. Hare, Jr., Alva C. Caine, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Before VANCE and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges, and MORGAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs were injured when the motorcycle on which they were riding overturned. The accident occurred in Pensacola, Florida on Main Street near its intersection with Comandencia. Defendant Burlington's track runs up the center of Main Street at that location. Plaintiffs alleged that the accident was caused by a dangerous defect in the surface of Main Street and that the defect was created and controlled by Burlington. Trial by jury resulted in substantial verdicts and judgments in plaintiffs' favor. Burlington appeals and makes four contentions of error.

(1)

Burlington first argues that the trial court did not enforce its pretrial order in an even handed manner. In pertinent part, the order provides:

10. Exhibits. The parties shall by October 14, 1983, exchange lists describing all writings, recordings, documents, bills, reports, records, photographs and other exhibits (collectively called "exhibits") which they may utilize at trial. Unless specifically agreed between the parties or allowed by the court for good cause shown, the parties shall be precluded from offering as substantive evidence any exhibit not so identified. Except where beyond a party's control or otherwise impracticable (e.g., records from an independent third-party being obtained through subpoena), each party shall make such exhibits available for inspection and copying. Except to the extent written notice to the contrary is filed with the Clerk of the Court within five days after receiving such list, each party shall be deemed to have agreed (for purposes of this litigation only):

....

(g) that each of the listed documents is admissible at trial.

No lists were exchanged. Instead, the parties exchanged the actual exhibits that they proposed to use. No written notices or objections to opposing parties' exhibits were filed with the clerk of the court by either side.

Before the jury was struck the following colloquy took place:

THE COURT: Are there any other preliminary matters? I take it you've exchanged a list of witnesses. Have you exchanged a list of documents?

MR. STABLER [Burlington's attorney]: I guess we have, haven't we?

THE COURT: Well, since I have heard nothing by way of objection to documents, any document that's offered will be received in evidence.

MR. CARLTON WYNN [Plaintiffs' attorney]: We've given you a master sheet on all of the exhibits that we would be talking about and still that--and plus, I think I've shown you every picture that I had and I think--

MR. STABLER: We have exchanged information very freely, I believe.

THE COURT: All right.

Notwithstanding the apparent agreement of the parties and the absence of any pretrial objections by any party the following developed during plaintiffs' examination of their first witness:

MR. WYNN: I offer that as plaintiffs' exhibit number five.

MR. STABLER: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this.

THE COURT: Let me ask you this, Mr. Stabler, was this one of the exhibits listed?

MR. STABLER: We've seen it and objected to it before.

THE COURT: Have you objected to it?

MR. STABLER: Objected to it in the deposition, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, the pretrial order required you before the receipt of the list of the exhibits to file an objection with the Court, and it further provided that if no objections were filed with the Court, the exhibit when offered at trial would be received in evidence.

MR. STABLER: Your Honor, I don't want to make a point of it. I didn't receive a list of the exhibits in that form, but I was made aware they were going to offer them and I have been made aware--

MR. WYNN: He has said, and I represent to the Court he has seen every picture I have in my file.

MR. STABLER: I'm not making a point of that, but I was not given a formal list for the proceedings we're talking about here. I'm not making a point of it, Carlton, but I'm explaining why I didn't give a formal response.

MR. WYNN: They gave the pictures themselves, I don't see how they could be any more accurate than that, if they are talking about numbers a picture might have--

THE COURT: Well, does either side or did either side comply with the pretrial order in providing a list of documents?

MR. WYNN: We did, and he showed me his and I showed him mine.

MR. STABLER: I don't believe you gave me a list.

MR. WYNN: When I showed you the pictures.

MR. STABLER: I agree with you. That's what I am telling the Court. I agree with you.

MR. WYNN: I don't know how else I could give you a better list than the pictures themselves. I didn't say it with regard to these pictures--they are numbered one through fifty--number one--this is number twenty-five, gave everything in my file, gave it to you and said this is what we expect you to use in this case.

THE COURT: All right. The objection is overruled.

Q. All right, sir.

MR. STABLER: Your Honor, you realize he is talking about pictures of another area than in this case, an area he says is comparable to the area in this case?

THE COURT: All I realize is I signed a pretrial order that required that objections to exhibits be filed with the Court prior to trial, so I could pass on them prior to trial and no objections have been filed with the Court and, as I said to ya'll on the record this morning the exhibits which have been identified when offered will be received in evidence because there has been no objection.

The thrust of Burlington's contention is that by enforcing a portion of its pretrial order (the requirement that written objections be filed in advance of trial) and waiving another (the exchanging of lists of exhibits), the district court unfairly allowed into evidence inadmissible exhibits ¹ that were highly prejudicial.

As we will briefly note in part 2 infra, we conclude that the exhibits were admissible. Even if we concluded to the contrary, however, we would not accept that the trial court's handling of the matter was unfair or erroneous.

This court has recognized that trial courts have wide latitude in controlling pretrial procedures. Enforcement of pretrial orders in matters such as the one now before the court is within the discretion of the district court. See Typographical Service, Inc. v. Itek Corp., 721 F.2d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir.1983); Fabrica Italiana Lavorazione Materie Organiche, S.A.S. v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 684 F.2d 776, 780-81 (11th Cir.1982); National Distillers & Chemical Co. v. Brad's Machine Products, 666 F.2d 492, 497 (11th Cir.1982). The trial judge's rulings in this area "must not be disturbed unless it is demonstrated that he has clearly abused the broad discretion vested in him by Rule 16." National Distillers, 666 F.2d at 497 (quoting Davis v. Duplantis, 448 F.2d 918, 921 (5th Cir.1971)).

In this case the trial court treated the parties' exchange of the actual exhibits as substantial compliance with the pre-trial order's requirement that lists of the exhibits be exchanged. It allowed into evidence the exchanged exhibits and did not allow the plaintiffs to introduce exhibits that had not been exchanged.

Compliance with prescribed pretrial procedures is of increasing importance to the effective administration of justice in the face of burgeoning case loads. Trial judges and opposing litigants have a right to expect that the court's orders will be carefully followed in order that the business of the court may be handled expeditiously and fairly. Appellate courts are empowered, of course, to provide relief from arbitrary and unreasonable application of rules. Such, however, is not the case before us. This was a reasonable requirement with an obvious and important purpose, which in our view was applied in a reasonable manner. Counsel cannot show cavalier disregard for a district court's pretrial requirements and reasonably expect this court to extricate them from an unhappy aftermath.

(2)

Burlington next argues that the district court erred in admitting the exhibits ² into evidence and in allowing a defense witness to be impeached with questions concerning other accidents that allegedly occurred in the same vicinity. In connection with the exhibits, there is an overlap between this contention and the first. Our ruling with respect to the first contention disposes of the second. It is appropriate to note, however, that in our view the exhibits were both relevant and admissible. Plaintiffs' theory, which had ample evidentiary support, was that Burlington had allowed the condition of the surface of Main Street to deteriorate all along the three blocks that its tracks ran onto and up the center of the street. Burlington disputed this generalized state of...