22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T44d,discussion of ongoing testimony during breaks, did not prejudice Reynaga. Cf. Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272, 281–85 (1989). 2 We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. See Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 384 (2008). There was no such abuse here. The District Court did not err in excluding evidence pertaining to the locker search, as it could not have given rise to any relevant inference. Nor did it err by excluding evidence regarding Reynaga’s job assignments. That theory was not included in the pretrial order. See U.S. v. First Nat’l Bank of Circle, 652 F.2d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 1981). There was no error in the admission of Reynaga’s own racially derogatory statements. See, e.g., Hrobowski v. Worthington Steel Co., 358 F.3d 473, 476 (7th Cir. 2004); Scusa v. Nestle U.S.A. Co., 181 F.3d 958, 966 (8th Cir. 1999). Statements by Reynaga’s son and Mr. Hill regarding firearms and derogatory language at the mill were irrelevant because Reynaga failed to make an offer of proof that he was aware of the offered information. AFFIRMED. 324:T49f,

discussion of ongoing testimony during breaks, did not prejudice Reynaga. Cf.

Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272, 281–85 (1989).

2 We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. See Sprint/United

Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 384 (2008). There was no such abuse

here. The District Court did not err in excluding evidence pertaining to the locker

search, as it could not have given rise to any relevant inference. Nor did it err by

excluding evidence regarding Reynaga’s job assignments. That theory was not

included in the pretrial order. See U.S. v. First Nat’l Bank of Circle, 652 F.2d 882,

886 (9th Cir. 1981). There was no error in the admission of Reynaga’s own racially

derogatory statements. See, e.g., Hrobowski v. Worthington Steel Co., 358 F.3d

473, 476 (7th Cir. 2004); Scusa v. Nestle U.S.A. Co., 181 F.3d 958, 966 (8th Cir.

1999). Statements by Reynaga’s son and Mr. Hill regarding firearms and

derogatory language at the mill were irrelevant because Reynaga failed to make an

offer of proof that he was aware of the offered information.

AFFIRMED.