National Association for the Advancement of Multijurisdiction Practice et al v. Arizona Supreme Court et al
Filing
103
ORDER denying 98 Plaintiffs' Motion to Submit Additional Evidence and Supplement the Record for Appeal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bridget S Bade on 10/18/13.(TLJ)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
National Association for the Advancement
of Multijurisdiction Practice; Allison Girvin;
Mark Anderson; Mark Kolman,
No. CV-12-01724-PHX-BSB
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
11
12
v.
13
Arizona Supreme Court; Rebecca White
Berch; W Scott Bales; John Pelander;
Robert M Brutinel,
14
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiffs have filed a motion to submit additional evidence and supplement the
18
record for appeal.
19
consideration of this matter, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion.
20
I.
(Doc. 98.)
Defendants oppose the motion.
(Doc. 99.)
After
Background
21
On September 19, 2013, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary
22
judgment and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in this matter. (Docs. 96,
23
97.) Plaintiffs now seek to supplement the record with the declarations and curricula
24
vitae of Dr. Mark Leary and Dr. Scott E. Paige. (Doc. 98, Exs. 1-4.) Plaintiffs assert that
25
these declarations demonstrate that the “tit-for-tat” bar admission rules do not serve a
26
legitimate purpose, but rather are based on a “hard-wired evolutionary need to retaliate
27
for perceived slights.” (Doc. 98 at 2.) Plaintiffs further contend that the declarations
28
1
“call into question [the] Court’s Commerce Clause conclusion, as well as many other
2
findings Plaintiffs intend to appeal.” (Id.)
3
In opposition to the motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not cited any
4
legal authority in support of their request to supplement the record with “inadmissible
5
declarations” for the appellate court’s consideration. Defendants further argue that the
6
declarations should not be considered for appellate review and that they would not affect
7
the outcome of this case. (Doc. 99.)
8
In their reply, Plaintiffs emphasize that they are not seeking reconsideration of this
9
Court’s rulings. (Doc. 100.) Specifically, Plaintiffs do not ask this Court to reconsider
10
any of its orders in light of Dr. Leary’s and Dr. Paige’s declarations. Plaintiffs opine that
11
“it would be an obvious waste of time for Plaintiffs to file a motion for reconsideration”
12
in this Court. (Id. at 3.) Rather, Plaintiffs seek to supplement the record to permit the
13
appellate court to consider their claims, including the declarations of Drs. Paige and
14
Leary, “in one fell swoop.” (Id. at 2.)
15
II.
Analysis
16
A.
“Unusual Circumstances”
17
Except in “unusual circumstances,” the appellate court “consider[s] only the
18
district court record on appeal.” Lowry v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir. 2003)
19
(stating the general rule against supplementing the record on appeal with materials that
20
were not before the district court except in unusual circumstances). The Ninth Circuit
21
has described these “unusual circumstances” as later developments that could moot a
22
controversy or divest the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. The Ninth Circuit has
23
held that “[p]apers not filed with the district court or admitted into evidence by that court
24
are not part of the clerk’s record and cannot be part of the record on appeal.” United
25
States v. Walker, 601 F.2d 1051, 1054-55 (9th Cir. 1979) (affidavits that “were not part of
26
the evidence presented to the district court” would not be considered on appeal).
27
Plaintiffs are apparently attempting to circumvent this general rule by seeking to
28
supplement the record before the district court with two declarations, which are dated
-2-
1
approximately two months before the Court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for
2
summary judgment, but were not submitted for filing until after the Court entered
3
judgment.
4
declarations. Rather, they want to make them part of the record for the appellate court’s
5
consideration.
Plaintiffs, however, are not requesting that this Court consider those
6
Plaintiffs have not cited any legal authority in support of their request.
7
Furthermore, this request should be directed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, rather
8
than to this Court. See Lowry, 329 F.3d at 1024-25 (stating that “[o]nly the court may
9
supplement the record. “[It is a] basic tenet of appellate jurisprudence . . . that parties
10
may not unilaterally supplement the record on appeal with evidence not reviewed by the
11
court below.”). Moreover, even if the Court permitted Plaintiffs to supplement the record
12
with the declarations, those declarations were not part of the record before this Court
13
when it issued its September 19, 2013 Order, which Plaintiffs have appealed. (Doc. 101.)
14
Thus, granting Plaintiffs’ motion would be futile because the appellate court generally
15
only considers the record that was before the district court when it made the decision that
16
is at issue on appeal. See United States v. Walker, 601 F.2d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir. 1988)
17
(“We are concerned here only with the record before the trial judge when his decision
18
was made”); Heath v. Helmick, 173 F.2d 156, 156-57 (9th Cir. 1949) (striking from the
19
record on appeal papers that were filed in the district court after judgment from which the
20
appeal was taken).
21
B.
Newly Discovered Evidence
22
Plaintiffs also argue that these declarations are “new evidence [that] was not
23
discovered until well after the Summary Judgment Motion and Oppositions were briefed”
24
(Doc. 98 at 3 (emphasis in original)), and that “[t]his newly discovered evidence was not
25
earlier available.”
26
declarations were not available to them before the Court ruled on the pending dispositive
27
motions. Indeed, the declarations are dated approximately two months before the Court’s
28
order. In addition, there is nothing in the declarations to suggest that the declarants are
(Doc. 100 at 2).
Plaintiffs, however, do not argue that these
-3-
1
offering newly-formed opinions or opinions based on information that was not available
2
before Plaintiffs filed their motion for summary judgment or responded to Defendants’
3
motions. Therefore, the Court finds that these declarations are not newly discovered
4
evidence and that there are no “unusual circumstances” that would allow Plaintiffs to
5
supplement the record with materials that were not before the Court when it considered
6
the parties’ dispositive motions. See Lowry, 329 F.3d at 1024.
7
C.
Pretrial Conference
8
Finally, Plaintiffs assert that they “were entirely deprived of a case management
9
conference” (Doc. 98 at 2) and that the Court “”refus[ed] to schedule a case management
10
conference.” (Doc. 100 at 3.) The parties, however, did not request a pretrial conference
11
at any time, they did not make any request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d)
12
for discovery to respond to the pending dispositive motions, and they did they make any
13
other request for discovery or a scheduling order.1
14
Instead, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment before they filed their
15
second amended complaint, which was the operative complaint in this matter, and they
16
asserted that “there is no issue as to any material fact and that they are entitled to
17
judgment as a matter of law.”
18
Defendants’ request to stay briefing on summary judgment to allow the Court to first rule
19
on their motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs asserted that any delay in ruling on their “valid
20
well-documented” motion for summary judgment was “prejudicial” to Plaintiffs.
21
(Doc. 32 at 1-2.) Plaintiffs sought an immediate ruling and did not express any concerns
22
about the manner in which the case was progressing.
(Doc. 28 at 1.)
Furthermore, Plaintiffs opposed
23
Plaintiffs raise this issue for the first time after receiving an adverse ruling and
24
after the entry of judgment. Plaintiffs do not explain how the Court’s case management
25
1
26
27
28
Plaintiffs filed a complaint (Doc. 1), amended complaint (Doc. 14), and second
amended complaint. (Doc. 36.) Defendants responded with motions to dismiss for
failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Docs. 12, 19, and 52.)
Before filing their second amended complaint, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment. (Doc. 28.) Defendants did not file an answer to the second amended
complaint, but instead filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Doc. 52) and
later filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 54.)
-4-
1
prevented them from timely or appropriately submitting declarations to support their
2
motion for summary judgment or to respond to Defendants’ motions.
3
procedural posture of the case, in which dispositive motions were filed at the outset of the
4
case, and the Court was actively involved in setting briefing deadlines and in case
5
management (Docs. 10, 15, 18, 25, 35, 39, 47, 48, 56), Plaintiffs have not shown that a
6
scheduling order would have allowed them to submit additional evidence to support their
7
motion for summary judgment or to respond to Defendants’ motions.
8
Plaintiffs have not shown that they should now be allowed to supplement the record for
9
appeal.
10
III.
Given the
Therefore,
Conclusion
11
Plaintiffs were not deprived of any opportunities to fully present their claims to
12
this Court. In the pending motion, Plaintiffs do not seek any further opportunity to
13
present their claims to this Court. Rather, they seek to present their claims and additional
14
evidence to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs have not cited any legal
15
authority to support their argument that the district court can expand the record solely for
16
the purpose of appellate review, nor have Plaintiffs established any unusual
17
circumstances that would authorize the Court to supplement the record for this purpose.
18
Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion.
19
Accordingly,
20
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Submit Additional Evidence and
21
22
Supplement the Record for Appeal (Doc. 98) is DENIED.
Dated this 18th day of October, 2013.
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?