## Facts

- Hosea Payne, a longshoreman, brought an admiralty personal-injury action against the vessel S.S. Nabob and its owner, North German Lloyd, alleging unseaworthiness and/or negligence.
- The shipowner impleaded Lavino Shipping Company, Payne’s stevedore employer.
- Under the district’s pretrial practice, Payne filed a pretrial memorandum stating he would rely on the condition of a winch to prove his claim.
- The trial judge issued a pretrial report reflecting the winch condition as the basis for Payne’s claim; Payne did not object to the report or seek amendment before trial.
- At trial, Payne’s counsel attempted to add a different unseaworthiness theory—improper loading/handling of cargo—and sought to present two witnesses not identified in the pretrial memorandum.
- The impleaded stevedore objected that the new theory and witnesses were outside the pretrial disclosures.
- The district court sustained the objection, excluded the new theory and unlisted witnesses, denied a continuance, and entered judgment against Payne.

## Issues

1. Whether the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s standing pretrial order applied to admiralty cases.
2. Whether the district court could treat the pretrial memorandum and the judge’s pretrial report as binding limits on trial theories and witnesses, and exclude a newly asserted theory and unlisted witnesses.
3. Whether excluding the new theory and witnesses and denying a continuance was an abuse of discretion under Rule 16-style pretrial management.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed.
- The court held the district’s standing pretrial order applied to admiralty matters.
- The court held the pretrial memorandum and the judge’s pretrial report effectively fixed the issues and witnesses for trial.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in excluding the undisclosed “improper loading” theory, excluding unlisted witnesses, and denying a continuance.

## Legal Principles

- District courts may apply local pretrial conference procedures to admiralty cases where pretrial practice is authorized in admiralty and the local order broadly covers civil cases.
- Pretrial disclosures (including a party’s pretrial memorandum) and a judge’s pretrial report may function as a binding pretrial framework limiting theories and witnesses at trial, even if not labeled a formal “order.”
- Counsel have a duty in pretrial practice to make full and fair disclosure of intended issues and witnesses; late shifts in theory or witness lists may be barred in the court’s discretion.
- A party’s failure to timely object to or seek amendment of the pretrial framework supports enforcement at trial and weakens claims of unfair surprise.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit upheld strict enforcement of pretrial management in an admiralty personal-injury action, concluding that the standing pretrial order applied and that the plaintiff was bound by the trial issues and witnesses disclosed in his pretrial submissions and reflected in the judge’s pretrial report.


Payne v. S.S. Nabob, 302 F.2d 803 (3d Cir. 1962)