Shietze v. ITT Financial ( 1997 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAY 16 1997
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
WILLIAM D. SHIETZE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 96-6168
v.
(D.C. No. CIV-95-763-L)
(W.D. Okla.)
ITT FINANCIAL SERVICES, a
Delaware Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, EBEL and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Mr. William D. Shietze appeals the district court's refusal to allow him to
call a rebuttal witness.
Mr. Shietze filed this action against ITT Federal Services Corporation
(ITT) alleging he was terminated in violation of the public policies of Oklahoma
for being a whistleblower. Specifically, Mr. Shietze asserted he was fired for his
refusal to participate in violations of ITT's contract with the United States
government and for reporting such violations to government officials.
Mr. Shietze's claims were tried to a jury March 18-22, 1996. After ITT's
case-in-chief, Mr. Shietze attempted to call Mr. Donald Kent as a rebuttal witness
to the testimony of Mr. Jim Fitch, Mr. Shietze's supervisor. Allegedly, Mr. Kent
would have testified that on the day Mr. Shietze was fired, he had a conversation
with Mr. Fitch wherein Mr. Fitch stated he was tired of Mr. Shietze complaining
and going to the government and he had figured out a way to get rid of him.
The district court disallowed this testimony on the grounds it was not
proper rebuttal testimony considering Mr. Fitch testified he could not recall a
conversation with Mr. Kent on the date Mr. Shietze was fired and that it should
have been presented in Mr. Shietze's case-in-chief.
-2-
On April 23, 1996, the jury returned a verdict in favor of ITT on all Mr.
Shietze's claims. On May 15, 1996, Mr. Shietze filed his notice of appeal.
On appeal, Mr. Shietze challenges the district court's refusal to allow him
to call Mr. Kent as a rebuttal witness to Mr. Fitch's testimony. 1
"A district court possesses considerable discretion in governing the
presentation of evidence ...." Comcoa, Inc. v. NEC Telephones, Inc., 931 F.2d
655, 663 (10th Cir. 1991). Therefore, we review the district court's evidentiary
rulings for an abuse of discretion. Pandit v. American Honda Motor Co., 82 F.3d
376, 379 (10th Cir. 1996). More specifically, we will not disturb the district
court's decision absent manifest injustice to the parties. Id. at 32. After a review
of the record, we conclude there is no manifest injustice in this case.
Mr. Shietze's entire case rested on the theory ITT terminated him for his
refusal to participate in ITT's violations of its contract with the United States
government and his disclosure of these alleged violations to government officials.
1
To the extent Mr. Shietze attempts to assert a denial of due process claim
based on the district court’s evidentiary ruling, his claim is without merit and will
not be considered further.
-3-
During the defense case-in-chief, Mr. Fitch testified he did not recall a
conversation regarding Mr. Shietze's termination on the date Mr. Shietze was
fired and that he did not tell Mr. Kent that Mr. Shietze complained too often and
was going to be gotten rid of. After this testimony, Mr. Shietze attempted to call
Mr. Kent to rebut Mr. Fitch's testimony regarding the conversation on the day Mr.
Shietze was terminated. Even assuming Mr. Kent's testimony was a proper
rebuttal to Mr. Fitch's testimony that he could not recall a conversation, Mr. Kent
was available during Mr. Shietze's case-in-chief and, given the nature of Mr.
Kent's testimony, should have been called then. See Pandit, 82 F.3d at 383(affirming district court's refusal to allow rebuttal evidence available in
appellant's case-in-chief). Additionally, there is no indication in the record Mr.
Fitch's testimony was unexpected.
Accordingly, we hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in
refusing to allow Mr. Shietze to call Mr. Kent as a rebuttal witness.
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
-4-