Susan L. Pittman v. Henry P. Flanagan, 287 So.3d 721

Background

Pittman and Flanagan divorced in 2003; one child of the marriage had support by consent. Twins were born to Pittman 225 days after the divorce; although not biological, Flanagan was the presumptive father and his name appeared on the birth certificates.
Pittman filed to register/modify support and to establish support for the twins (filed 2011); protracted proceedings followed, including a disavowal action that Flanagan later abandoned on appeal.
Case management order (signed Dec. 13, 2017) required disclosure of witnesses (including experts) at least 45 days before the scheduled trial. Trial was ultimately held May 9, 2018 (after continuances).
Trial judge imposed a two-hour-per-side time limitation, enforced with a court timekeeper; Flanagan complained he was deprived the opportunity to present evidence and had to make numerous proffers.
Trial court excluded Flanagan's late-disclosed financial expert (Singleton), allowed only a summary proffer of the expert’s testimony, and entered judgment implementing child support for all three children (insurance, arrears, and allocation of extraordinary expenses).
The First Circuit affirmed the child support judgment, finding no gross abuse of discretion as to time limits, expert exclusion for noncompliance with the case management order, or the scope of the proffer; Judge Higginbotham dissented on the time-limit issue.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Pittman)	Defendant's Argument (Flanagan)	Held
Trial time limits / due process	Time limits were reasonable, applied equally, judge was familiar with seven-year file, parties warned and given slightly over two hours each; limits necessary for docket control.	Two-hour cap denied due process by preventing presentation of relevant, noncumulative evidence; caused 27 proffers and limited exhibits.	Affirmed — no gross abuse of discretion. Limits were announced, applied equally, monitored, and not shown to be prejudicial.
Exclusion of defendant's financial expert	Exclusion proper: expert not disclosed within 45-day deadline in case management order; pretrial order compliance and avoidance of surprise justify exclusion.	Late notice excusable (learned of Pittman’s expert March 13; tax-season delay; timely retained and disclosed April 24/26); exclusion unfair.	Affirmed — trial court acted within discretion to exclude witness for noncompliance with pretrial scheduling.
Scope of proffer for excluded expert	Court properly permitted a summary proffer under La. C.C.P. art. 1636 and could limit a complete-record proffer; defendant had deposition option under art. 1636(B) but did not use it.	Court should have allowed full on-the-record proffer (complete testimony) of expert.	Affirmed — court permissibly limited proffer to a statement of nature of evidence; defendant failed to pursue other statutory remedies; issue rendered moot by proper exclusion.
Final child-support judgment	Award and related orders (arrears executory, insurance, expense allocation) were supported by evidence and appropriately entered.	Challenges to process do not undermine sufficiency/support award; argued process errors required reversal/remand.	Affirmed — judgment upheld; costs assessed to Flanagan.

Key Cases Cited

Goodwin v. Goodwin, 618 So.2d 579 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1993) (due process does not entitle litigant to unlimited time; set nonexclusive factors for time limits).
Plaia v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., 229 So.3d 480 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2016) (endorsing Goodwin principles on court time limits and due process).
Louisiana Safety Ass'n of Timbermen v. Carlton, 111 So.3d 1076 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2012) (appellate deference to trial court control of proceedings and time management).
Southern Casting of Louisiana, Inc. v. Houma Avionics, Inc., 809 So.2d 1040 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2001) (trial court may enforce pretrial orders and exclude witnesses for noncompliance).
Pino v. Gauthier, 633 So.2d 638 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1993) (recognizing broad trial-court discretion in conducting trial proceedings).