Printable Format60-216. Pretrial conferences; case management conference. (a) Purposes of a pretrial conference. In any action, the court must on the request of any party, or may without a request, order the attorneys for the parties and any unrepresented parties to appear for one or more conferences to expedite processing and disposition of the litigation, minimize expense and conserve time.
(b) Case management conference. In any action, the court must on the request of any party, or may without a request, conduct a case management conference with attorneys and any unrepresented parties. The court must schedule the conference as soon as possible. The conference must be conducted within 45 days after the filing of an answer, unless the court extends the time to meet the needs of the case.
(1) At a case management conference the court must consider and take appropriate action on the following matters:
(A) Identifying the issues and exploring the possibilities of stipulations and settlement;
(B) determining whether the action is suitable for alternative dispute resolution;
(C) exchanging information on the issues, including key documents and witness identification;
(D) establishing a plan and schedule for discovery, including setting limits on discovery, if any, designating the time and place of discovery, restricting discovery to certain designated witnesses or requiring statements be taken in writing or by use of electronic recording rather than by stenographic transcription;
(E) determining issues relating to disclosure, discovery or preservation of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced;
(F) determining issues relating to claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, including any agreements the parties reach for asserting claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material after information is produced, including agreements reached under K.S.A. 60-426a, and amendments thereto;
(G) requiring completion of discovery within a definite number of days after the conference has been conducted;
(H) setting deadlines for filing motions, joining parties and amendments to the pleadings;
(I) setting the date or dates for conferences before trial, a final pretrial conference, and trial; and
(J) such other matters as are necessary for the proper management of the action.
(2) If a case management conference is held, no depositions, other than of the parties may be taken until after the conference is held, except by agreement of the parties, by order of the court or as provided in K.S.A. 60-230(a)(2)(B), and amendments thereto. If the case management conference is not held within 45 days after the filing of an answer, the restrictions of this paragraph no longer apply.
(3) If discovery cannot be completed within the time originally prescribed by the court, the party not able to complete discovery may file a motion for additional time to complete discovery. The motion must be filed prior to the expiration of the original period, contain a discovery plan and state the reason why discovery cannot be completed within the original period. If additional time is allowed, the court must grant only that amount of time reasonably necessary to complete discovery.
(c) Attendance and matters for consideration at a pretrial conference. (1) Attendance. A represented party must authorize at least one of its attorneys to make stipulations and admissions about all matters that can be reasonably anticipated for discussion at a pretrial conference. If appropriate, the court may require that a party or its representative be present or reasonably available by other means in order to consider possible settlement of the dispute. The court may allow a pretrial conference to be held by a telephone conference call or other means.
(2) Matters for consideration. At any pretrial conference, the court may consider and take appropriate action on the following matters:
(A) Simplifying the issues;
(B) determining the issues of law that may eliminate or affect the trial of issues of fact;
(C) amending the pleadings if necessary or desirable;
(D) obtaining admissions and stipulations about facts and documents to avoid unnecessary proof;
(E) limiting the number of expert witnesses;
(F) referring issues to a master; and
(G) such other matters as may aid in the disposition of the action, including alternative dispute resolution.
(d) Pretrial orders. After any conference held under this section, the court should issue an order reciting the action taken. This order controls the subsequent course of the action unless the court modifies it.
(e) Final pretrial conference and orders. In any action, the court must on the request of any party, or may without a request, conduct a final pretrial conference in accordance with procedures established by rule of the supreme court. The court may modify the order issued after a final pretrial conference only to prevent manifest injustice.
(f) Sanctions. (1) In general. On motion or on its own, and after opportunity to be heard, the court may issue any just orders, including those authorized by K.S.A. 60-237(b)(2)(A)(ii) through (vii), and amendments thereto, if a party or its attorney:
(A) Fails to appear at a case management or other pretrial conference;
(B) is substantially unprepared to participate, or does not participate in good faith, in the conference; or
(C) fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.
(2) Imposing fees and costs. Instead of, or in addition to any other sanction, the court must order the party, its attorney, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred because of any noncompliance with this section, unless the noncompliance was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-216; L. 1986, ch. 215, § 4; L. 1997, ch. 173, § 9; L. 2008, ch. 21, § 1; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 83; L. 2017, ch. 75, § 3; July 1.
Source or prior law:
L. 1949, ch. 318, § 1.
Cross References to Related Sections:
Depositions and discovery pending action, see 60-226.
Perpetuation of testimony, see 60-227.
Interrogatories to parties, see 60-233.
Discovery and production of documents, etc., see 60-234.
Involuntary dismissal, effect thereof, see 60-241(b).
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Divorce and Alimony Under the New Code," Dan Hopson, Jr., 12 K.L.R. 27.
Applicable to K.S.A. 60-1507 proceedings; "Post Conviction Motions," J. Richard Foth and Arthur E. Palmer, 12 K.L.R. 493, 498 (1964).
1963-65 survey of civil practice, Earl B. Shurtz, 14 K.L.R. 171, 178, 179 (1965).
Cited as deleting requirement for pretrial order contained in G.S. 1949, 60-2705, Stephen M. Todd, 35 J.B.A.K. 97, 152 (1966).
"Interrogatories Restrained," Roger D. Stanton, 37 J.B.A.K. 7, 9 (1968).
Comment concerning discovery of insurance policy limits, Randy L. Baird, 11 W.L.J. 327 (1972).
"Discovery Techniques in Workmen's Compensation: Largely Undiscovered?" Robert Fowks, 42 J.B.A.K. 83, 86 (1973).
"Objections," Laurence Rose, 2 J.K.T.L.A. No. 3, 18, 19 (1978).
"Motion in Limine," Laurence Rose, 3 J.K.T.L.A. No. 4, 17 (1980).
"In the Best Interests of the Divided Family: An Analysis of the 1982 Amendments to the Kansas Divorce Code," Nancy G. Maxwell, 22 W.L.J. 177, 200 (1983).
"Survey of Kansas Law: Evidence," Mark M. Dobson, 32 K.L.R. 625, 629 (1984).
"Comparative Negligence. New Rules of Pleading and Burden of Proof," Vol. IX, Special Issue, J.K.T.L.A. 28 (1985).
"Recent Decisions Affecting the Trial of Cases," Ruth M. Benien, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XVI, No. 3, 18 (1993).
"The Fork in the Road: A Practitioner's Guide to the 1997 Changes in the Code of Civil Procedure," J. Nick Badgerow, 66 J.K.B.A. No. 5, 32 (1997).
"A Kansas Approach to Custodial Parent Move-Away Cases," Steve Leben and Megan Moriarty, 37 W.L.J. 497 (1998).
"An ounce of Prevention...," Robert W. Parnacott, 68 J.K.B.A. No. 10, 36 (1999).
"Motions in Limine: Where Evidence Stands on the Threshold," Derek S. Casey, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 29, No. 4, 4 (2006).
"Comparison of Federal and State Court Practice," David G. Seely, 75 J.K.B.A. No. 4, 28 (2006).
"Cutting the Hedge: Reforming Comparative Fault in Medical Malpractice," John W. Johnson and Edward L. Robinson, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 30, No. 3, 12 (2007).
"ESI Comes to the K.S.A.: Kansas Adopts Federal Civil Procedure Rules on Electronic Discovery," J. Nick Badgerow, 77 J.K.B.A. No. 7, 30 (2008).
"Criminal Procedure Survey", 56 K.L.R. 745 (2008).
"Requests For Admission: Another Tool in the Box? (Part 2)," James R. Howell, 34 J.K.A.J., No. 3, 4 (2011).
"Successful Expert Discovery in Kansas State Court Civil Litigation," Steve R. Fabert, 82 J.K.B.A. No. 1, 36 (2013).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
Prior law cases, see G.S. 1961 Supp. 60-2705.
1. Mentioned; judgment on pleadings is rendered on lack of issue of fact. Winfield Livestock Auction v. Farmers State Bank, 193 Kan. 414, 427, 394 P.2d 7.
2. Judge's handwritten notes made at pretrial and placed in files of case in clerk's office sufficient pretrial order. Wilcox v. Colwell, 193 Kan. 617, 618, 620, 396 P.2d 315.
3. Pretrial orders control subsequent course of action unless modified to prevent manifest injustice. Brown v. Hardin, 197 Kan. 517, 519, 419 P.2d 912.
4. Plaintiff bound by theory of recovery stated in pretrial order. Evangelist v. Bellern Research Corporation, 199 Kan. 638, 641, 433 P.2d 380.
5. Cited; no error in denying motions to amend pleadings. Trimble, Administrator v. Coleman Co., Inc., 200 Kan. 350, 358, 359, 437 P.2d 219.
6. Parties submitted entire case to court for decision; consented to decision on all issues although ultimate ruling went beyond literal scope of pretrial order; pretrial order in effect superseded pleadings. Thompson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 201 Kan. 296, 300, 440 P.2d 548.
7. Where pretrial held but record does not disclose pretrial order was made, objection to introduction of exhibits on the grounds such exhibits were not presented at pretrial is unavailing. Jacks v. Cloughley, 203 Kan. 699, 704, 457 P.2d 175.
8. Cited; similarity noted to K.S.A. 60-256(d); upon both motions, case is not fully adjudicated and is subject to revision and modification. In re Estate of Countryman, 203 Kan. 731, 737, 457 P.2d 53.
9. Absent attempt before trial court to amend theory of action or to modify pretrial order, such order must control subsequent course of the action. Freeto Construction Co. v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 203 Kan. 741, 745, 746, 457 P.2d 1.
10. Power to modify orders properly entered as a result of pretrial conference is in the sound discretion of the trial court. Davis v. Best Cabs, Inc., 203 Kan. 930, 933, 457 P.2d 516.
11. Cited; medical bills not disclosed at pretrial conference excluded from evidence. Bodnar v. Jackson, 205 Kan. 469, 471, 470 P.2d 726.
12. Absent a manifest abuse of discretion the trial court's pretrial order refusing modification should be upheld on appeal. Tillotson v. Abbott, 205 Kan. 706, 709, 472 P.2d 240.
13. Existence of liability insurance and policy limits thereof are subject to disclosure at pretrial conference. Cropp v. Woleslagel, 207 Kan. 627, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633, 485 P.2d 1271.
14. Pretrial orders have same force and effect as any other orders. Bender v. Bulger Cadillac-Oldsmobile, Inc., 208 Kan. 72, 73, 490 P.2d 361.
15. Applied; appeal from verdict increasing appraisers' award in condemnation proceedings. Gault v. Board of County Commissioners, 208 Kan. 578, 584, 493 P.2d 238.
16. Pre-trial conference valuable tool to simplify issues in complex case. Munsell v. Ideal Food Stores, 208 Kan. 909, 928, 494 P.2d 1063.
17. Agreement that court to interpret policy of insurance; refusal to submit policy to jury not error. Baugher v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 214 Kan. 891, 899, 522 P.2d 401.
18. Purpose of pretrial order; controls course of trial unless modified. Beard v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 215 Kan. 343, 349, 524 P.2d 1159.
19. Pre-trial order superseded pleadings and controlled course of action; statutory action summary judgment sustained. Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. City of Wichita, 217 Kan. 44, 47, 536 P.2d 54.
20. Pre-trial order controlled course of action where not modified. Querry v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 217 Kan. 104, 111, 535 P.2d 928.
21. Error to allow amendment of pretrial order after all parties had rested. Herrell v. Maddux, 217 Kan. 192, 193, 194, 535 P.2d 935.
22. Failure to raise issue of noncompliance with notice requirements of K.S.A. 84-2-607 at pretrial conference; waiver. Dold v. Sherow, 220 Kan. 350, 353, 552 P.2d 945.
23. Construed; trial court granted large discretionary power. Frevele v. McAloon, 222 Kan. 295, 298, 564 P.2d 508.
24. Cited; pretrial order controls subsequent course of action unless modified; trial court did not err in refusing to give instruction concerning right-of-way. Kleibrink v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co., 224 Kan. 437, 442, 581 P.2d 372.
25. In shareholders' derivative action trial court did not abuse discretion in allowing amendment of pretrial order. Newton v. Hornblower, Inc., 224 Kan. 506, 512, 582 P.2d 1136.
26. Motion in limine discussed in detail; guidelines for use spelled out. State v. Quick, 226 Kan. 308, 311, 597 P.2d 1108.
27. Judgment in wrongful death action affirmed; trial court did not err in its conduct or rulings at pretrial. White v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 227 Kan. 293, 294, 607 P.2d 43.
28. Where pretrial order agreed upon by parties, such order controls subsequent course of action unless modified to prevent manifest injustice. Country Club Home, Inc. v. Harder, 228 Kan. 756, 762, 620 P.2d 1140. Decision modified: 228 Kan. 802, 623 P.2d 505.
29. Pretrial order held valid where party failed to object or present argument challenging order. Quinlan v. Leech, 5 Kan. App. 2d 706, 709, 623 P.2d 1365.
30. Conviction of sale of cocaine upheld; no reversible error by trial court in excluding defense witnesses from testifying. State v. Bright, 229 Kan. 185, 192, 623 P.2d 917.
31. Construed; no prejudice to plaintiff by disallowing second pretrial conference; case reversed on other grounds. Juhnke v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, 6 Kan. App. 2d 744, 747, 634 P.2d 1132 (1981).
32. Pretrial order, if not objected to, controls subsequent course of trial unless modified; instructions in accord therewith. Sieben v. Sieben, 231 Kan. 372, 376, 646 P.2d 1036 (1982).
33. Modification of pretrial order proper. Black v. Don Schmid Motor, Inc., 232 Kan. 458, 468, 657 P.2d 517 (1983).
34. When pretrial order is entered by court pursuant to statute finding that question of alter ego is a question of law, such order controls subsequent course of trial. Sampson v. Hunt, 233 Kan. 572, 578, 665 P.2d 743 (1983).
35. No abuse of discretion where trial court chose to prevent excessive cumulative evidence from expert witnesses. Powers v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 234 Kan. 89, 98, 99, 671 P.2d 491 (1983).
36. Cited in holding possessor of wild animal harming another subject to strict liability and K.S.A. 60-258a. Mills v. Smith, 9 Kan. App. 2d 80, 84, 673 P.2d 117 (1984).
37. Discovery and pretrial utilized to formulate issues of fact and law for ultimate determination; pretrial order supersedes pleadings. Oller v. Kincheloe's, Inc., 235 Kan. 440, 448, 681 P.2d 630 (1984).
38. Trial court's pretrial order amends pleadings; no other documents need be filed. Bob Eldridge Constr. Co. v. Pioneer Materials, Inc., 235 Kan. 599, 606, 684 P.2d 355 (1984).
39. Discretion of trial court abused only when no reasonable man would take the view adopted. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Liggett, 236 Kan. 120, 124, 689 P.2d 187 (1984).
40. Cited; where order specified applicable statute of limitations was question of law to be decided, subsequent trial briefs proper. Potucek v. Potucek, 11 Kan. App. 2d 254, 259, 719 P.2d 14 (1986).
41. Cited; purpose and application of pretrial and discovery proceedings, use of expert reports in lieu of depositions examined. Burkhart v. Philsco Products Co., 241 Kan. 562, 738 P.2d 433 (1987).
42. Cited; plaintiff's burden in product liability case where needle believed to be in loaf of bread examined. Hazelton v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 12 Kan. App. 2d 377, 380, 745 P.2d 309 (1987).
43. Issue as to defendant being sufficiently apprised regarding consequences of failure to take breath test examined. Ramirez v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 13 Kan. App. 2d 332, 334, 770 P.2d 490 (1989).
44. Court's striking affirmative defenses within court's authority; order not challenged at trial and propriety thereof not appealable issue. Diversified Financial Planners, Inc. v. Maderak, 248 Kan. 946, 948, 811 P.2d 1236 (1991).
45. Pretrial order controls course of action unless modified to prevent manifest injustice; claim should not be entertained unless in pretrial order. Herbstreith v. de Bakker, 249 Kan. 67, 75, 815 P.2d 102 (1991).
46. Court's wide latitude and discretion in permitting or refusing amendments to pretrial order examined. Brown v. United Methodist Homes for the Aged, 249 Kan. 124, 141, 815 P.2d 72 (1991).
47. Court's limitation of expert witnesses at second trial to number available at first trial examined. Pope v. Ransdell, 251 Kan. 112, 118, 833 P.2d 965 (1992).
48. Cited in holding that following steps enumerated herein could have avoided most if not all alleged trial court errors. Carnes v. Meadowbrook Executive Bldg. Corp., 17 Kan. App. 2d 292, 298, 836 P.2d 1212 (1992).
49. Cited in holding that procedure set forth in K.S.A. 60-3703 regarding claim for punitive damages is a requirement for allowing motion. Sullwood v. Barcus, 17 Kan. App. 2d 410, 417, 838 P.2d 908 (1992).
50. Trial court's refusal to allow testimony of three unendorsed defense witnesses examined. State v. Coleman, 253 Kan. 335, 347, 856 P.2d 121 (1993).
51. Pretrial order noting motion to plead punitive damages as continuing motion did not cause manifest injustice. Burrowwood Assocs., Inc. v. Safelite Glass Corp., 18 Kan. App. 2d 396, 398, 853 P.2d 1175 (1993).
52. Whether party may assert prejudgment interest claim not specified in pretrial conference order examined. St. Francis Regional Med. Center v. Weiss, 254 Kan. 728, 869 P.2d 606 (1994).
53. Amendment to damage amount in pretrial order to reflect newly discovered data should have been allowed. Boyle v. Harries, 22 Kan. App. 2d 686, 690, 923 P.2d 504 (1996).
54. Trial court erred in making finding on an issue not contained in pretrial order. Pink Cadillac Bar and Grill, Inc. v. USF and G Co., 22 Kan. App. 2d 944, 952, 925 P.2d 452 (1996).
55. Trial court abused discretion by dismissing civil action for party's failure to comply with discovery order. Shay v. Kansas Dept. of Transportation, 266 Kan. 191, 194, 959 P.2d 849 (1998).
56. Trial court is not required to find a party acted in bad faith in failing to obey pretrial order to assess costs. Noll v. Burns, 26 Kan. App. 2d 895, 899, 995 P.2d 912 (2000).
57. Party seeking to amend a pretrial order must show manifest injustice. Butler v. HCA Health Svcs. of Kansas, Inc., 27 Kan. App. 2d 403, 6 P.3d 871 (2000).
58. Issue not contained in pretrial order should not be considered by trial court. McCain Foods USA, Inc. v. Central Processors, Inc., 275 Kan. 1, 61 P.3d 68 (2002).
59. Order in limine prohibited prosecution from introducing letter into evidence; prosecutor's question in error; examination of partial content of letter held to have little effect on case. State v. Bloom, 273 Kan. 291, 44 P.3d 305 (2002).
60. Section cited in objection to sequential order of parties in eminent domain proceeding; motion denied to modify pretrial order and grant continuance. Miller v. Glacier Development Co., 284 Kan. 476, 494, 500, 161 P.3d 730 (2007).
61. Mentioned in distinguishing between pretrial conferences and final pretrial conferences; punitive damages motion. Gates v. Goodyear, 37 Kan. App. 2d 623, 630, 631, 155 P.3d 1196 (2007).
62. Pretrial order controls litigation unless court allows modification to prevent manifest injustice. Nelson v. Nelson, 38 Kan. App. 2d 64, 75, 162 P.3d 43 (2007).
63. Discussion of case law relating to constructive fraud pleadings. Nelson v. Nelson, 288 Kan. 570, 205 P.3d 715 (2009).
64. Enforcement of case management order, sanctions available for violations discussed; district court abused its discretion in striking the disputed witnesses. Canaday v. Midway Denton U.S.D. No. 433, 42 Kan. App. 2d 866, 218 P.3d 446 (2009).