June Medical Services LLC et al v. Gee et al

Filing 304

RULING AND ORDER: Defendants' 293 MOTION for Limited Relief from the Protective Order to File Documents with the United States Supreme Court is DENIED. Signed by Judge Brian A. Jackson on 11/25/2019. (KAH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC,
d/b/a HOPE MEDICAL GROUP FOR
WOMEN, on behalf of its patients,
physicians, and staff, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
REBEKAH GEE, in her official
capacity as Secretary of Health of
the Louisiana Department of Health,
ETAL.

NO.: 16-00444-BAJ-RLB

RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Limited Relief (Doc. 293).
Defendants seek to submit three documents and their attachments from the record
in this matter to the United States Supreme Court to use as evidence in the upcoming
matter styled June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Gee, Nos. 18-1460, 18-1323 ("June I').
Defendants intend to use these documents to demonstrate that the plaintiffs in June
I lack third-party standing because their interests are adverse to their patients. (Doc.

293-1, at 1). Plaintiffs, who are also plaintiffs in June I, oppose this motion. See (Doc.
302).
While the evidence sought may well be relevant to Defendants' arguments in
June I, the record in that matter is closed, and appellate records are limited to

materials filed with the district court in that case. FED. R. APP. P. l0(a). The Fifth
Circuit has long held to this well-established principle-"[m]aterial that was not
1

presented in district court and is not a part of the record on appeal is not considered."
United States v. Crawford, 205 F.3d 1337 (5th Cir. 1999); see also Weathersby v. One
Source Mfg. Tech., L.L.C., 378 F. App'x 463, 466 (5th Cir. 2010). Even with material

from the record of related and pending litigation between the same parties, this
Circuit has refused to enlarge the record on appeal to include material not before the
district court in the matter before the Court of Appeals. Kemlon Prod. & Dev. Co. v.
United States, 646 F.2d 223, 224 (5th Cir. 1981).

Moreover, Defendants cite no authority or legal support whatsoever to show
why the Court should deviate from this fundamental rule of appellate procedure.
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Limited Relief (Doc. 293)
is DENIED.1

-,J-

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 2.S"cta.y of November, 2019.

1

Defendants filed the instant Motion on October 18, 2019. An Opposition was timely filed on November
8, 2019. A mere ten days later, on November 18, 2019, Defendants filed an Emergency Petition for Writ
of Mandamus, requesting three possible forms of relief, including that the Court be "order[ed] ... to rule
within 3 business days on Louisiana's Motion for Limited Relief (Doc. 293)." This Order, having
satisfied one of the forms of relief requested by Defendants in their Petition, will likely render that
Petition moot. Further, the Court notes that Defendants were entitled to request expedited relief from
this Court, rather than petitioning the Circuit to order the Court to do so. This is not to say that parties
are entitled to expedited review simply by virtue of requesting it. Nonetheless, mandamus is not an
appropriate method of attempting to elicit expedited relief for a pending motion, particularly a recently
filed one that does not reference an urgent time frame and contains no risk of irreparable harm if not
ruled on with the haste Defendants push for, as is the case with Doc. 293.

2