Opinion
No. 01 C 1478
September 19, 2002
SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This Courts September 13, 2002 memorandum opinion and order ("Opinion") addressed the motions in limine that had been filed by plaintiffs' counsel following the entry of the jointly submitted Final Pretrial Order ("PPTO") in this case. This supplement simply draws the parties' attention to an opinion from our Court of Appeals (SNA Nut Co. v. Hägen-Dazs Co., Inc., Nos. 00-4052 and 00-4100, 2002 WL 31007701, at *5 (7th Cir. Sept. 9)) that, although handed down earlier in the week in which the Opinion was issued, had not been delivered to this Court's chambers before that ruling.
As to plaintiffs' third motion (Dkt. 38-1), which had addressed the permissibility of defendant's advancing any potential argument stemming from plaintiffs' status as illegal aliens, the Opinion pointed in part to the absence of any reference by defendant to such an argument or defense in the FPTO. That ruling has been totally validated by SNA Nut, which states in relevant part:
We have previously noted that a pretrial conference and a pretrial order are vital parts of the procedural scheme created by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Gorlikowski v. Tolbert, 52 F.3d 1439, 1443 (7th Cir. 1995). Further, "[b] ecause the parties rely on the pretrial conference to inform them precisely what is in controversy, the pretrial order is treated as superceding the pleadings and establishes the issues to be considered at trial." Id. at 1443-44. Moreover, the whole purpose of pretrial conferences and orders "is to clarify the real nature of the dispute at issue[;] a claim or theory not raised in the pretrial order should not be considered by the fact-finder." Id. at 1444 (quotations omitted). While this result may seem harsh, pretrial orders help to prevent protracted litigation due to changing theories and arguments such as those that we are encountering in this case.