Prohibiting a party from presenting exhibits & witnesses at an evidentiary hearing; Pretrial scheduling orders; MCR 2.401(B)(2); Reasonable limitations on the presentation of evidence; MRE 611; Pro se litigants

Noting that the trial court never entered a scheduling order, the court concluded that it was not “a reasonable limitation to completely preclude plaintiff from introducing her proffered evidence, especially considering that” she was a pro se litigant. Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s order modifying her custody arrangement with defendant concerning their young child. She contended that it erred in “precluding her from calling her friends and family as witnesses and by not receiving her exhibits into evidence at the evidentiary hearing” on defendant’s motion to modify custody. The court agreed. It concluded that, in “failing to comply with MCR 2.401(B)(2), the trial court never instructed the parties that they were required to exchange witness lists and exhibits before the hearing.” Pursuant to MRE 611, a “trial court ‘must exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence,’ and can therefore reasonably limit the presentation of evidence.” But the court did not find the limitation here reasonable, noting that “plaintiff was a pro se litigant navigating the trial court procedures without a scheduling order” and that such “litigants are allowed some leniency in pursuing their claims.” Thus, it concluded that the trial court abused its discretion. Vacated and remanded. The court retained jurisdiction.