We review a ruling on whether offered evidence is within the scope of the issues presented in the pretrial order for abuse of discretion. See Lopez v. Josephson, 2001 MT 133, ¶ 14, 305 Mont. 446, 30 P.3d 326; see also Point Serv. Corp. v. Myers, 2005 MT 322, ¶ 18, 329 Mont. 502, 506, 125 P.3d 1107, 1111. A pretrial order supersedes the pleadings. Siegle v. Helmuth, 2009 MT 447N, ¶ 1.
We review a district court's discretionary rulings, such as denying a motion to amend the pretrial order, for an abuse of discretion. Hobble-Diamond Cattle Co. v. Triangle Irrigation Co., 249 Mont. 322, 323, 815 P.2d 1153, 1154 (1991) ("The sole issue on appeal is whether the [d]istrict [c]ourt abused its discretion in denying Hobble-Diamond's motion to amend . . . the pretrial order . . . .").
It is well established that courts may impose sanctions for a party's failure to obey a pretrial order. In cases involving a failure to comply with a pretrial order, pursuant to Rule 16(f), M.R.Civ.P., we have stated that the proper standard of review is whether the District Court abused its discretion. See Watson v. West, 2009 MT 342, 353 Mont. 120, 218 P.3d 1227.
Pretrial orders should be liberally construed, and district court decisions in this context are reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Hallenberg v. Gen. Mills Operations, Inc., 2006 MT 191, ¶ 1, 333 Mont. 143, 144, 141 P.3d 1216, 1218. Hjartarson v. Hjartarson, 2006 MT 273, ¶ 33, 334 Mont. 212, 220, 147 P.3d 164, 170-71 ("The pretrial order should be construed liberally, but the theory or issue must be included, at least implicitly, in the pretrial order.")