Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01724/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01724-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Injunction

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

National Association for the Advancement 

of Multijurisdiction Practice; Allison Girvin; 

Mark Anderson; Mark Kolman, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Arizona Supreme Court; Rebecca White 

Berch; W Scott Bales; John Pelander; 

Robert M Brutinel, 

Defendants. 

No. CV-12-01724-PHX-BSB

ORDER 

 Plaintiffs have filed a motion to submit additional evidence and supplement the 

record for appeal. (Doc. 98.) Defendants oppose the motion. (Doc. 99.) After 

consideration of this matter, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion. 

I. Background 

 On September 19, 2013, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in this matter. (Docs. 96, 

97.) Plaintiffs now seek to supplement the record with the declarations and curricula 

vitae of Dr. Mark Leary and Dr. Scott E. Paige. (Doc. 98, Exs. 1-4.) Plaintiffs assert that 

these declarations demonstrate that the “tit-for-tat” bar admission rules do not serve a 

legitimate purpose, but rather are based on a “hard-wired evolutionary need to retaliate 

for perceived slights.” (Doc. 98 at 2.) Plaintiffs further contend that the declarations 

Case 2:12-cv-01724-BSB Document 103 Filed 10/18/13 Page 1 of 5
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

“call into question [the] Court’s Commerce Clause conclusion, as well as many other 

findings Plaintiffs intend to appeal.” (Id.) 

 In opposition to the motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not cited any 

legal authority in support of their request to supplement the record with “inadmissible 

declarations” for the appellate court’s consideration. Defendants further argue that the 

declarations should not be considered for appellate review and that they would not affect 

the outcome of this case. (Doc. 99.) 

 In their reply, Plaintiffs emphasize that they are not seeking reconsideration of this 

Court’s rulings. (Doc. 100.) Specifically, Plaintiffs do not ask this Court to reconsider 

any of its orders in light of Dr. Leary’s and Dr. Paige’s declarations. Plaintiffs opine that 

“it would be an obvious waste of time for Plaintiffs to file a motion for reconsideration” 

in this Court. (Id. at 3.) Rather, Plaintiffs seek to supplement the record to permit the 

appellate court to consider their claims, including the declarations of Drs. Paige and 

Leary, “in one fell swoop.” (Id. at 2.) 

II. Analysis 

A. “Unusual Circumstances” 

 Except in “unusual circumstances,” the appellate court “consider[s] only the 

district court record on appeal.” Lowry v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(stating the general rule against supplementing the record on appeal with materials that 

were not before the district court except in unusual circumstances). The Ninth Circuit 

has described these “unusual circumstances” as later developments that could moot a 

controversy or divest the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. The Ninth Circuit has 

held that “[p]apers not filed with the district court or admitted into evidence by that court 

are not part of the clerk’s record and cannot be part of the record on appeal.” United 

States v. Walker, 601 F.2d 1051, 1054-55 (9th Cir. 1979) (affidavits that “were not part of 

the evidence presented to the district court” would not be considered on appeal). 

 Plaintiffs are apparently attempting to circumvent this general rule by seeking to 

supplement the record before the district court with two declarations, which are dated 

Case 2:12-cv-01724-BSB Document 103 Filed 10/18/13 Page 2 of 5
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

approximately two months before the Court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment, but were not submitted for filing until after the Court entered 

judgment. Plaintiffs, however, are not requesting that this Court consider those 

declarations. Rather, they want to make them part of the record for the appellate court’s 

consideration. 

 Plaintiffs have not cited any legal authority in support of their request. 

Furthermore, this request should be directed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, rather 

than to this Court. See Lowry, 329 F.3d at 1024-25 (stating that “[o]nly the court may 

supplement the record. “[It is a] basic tenet of appellate jurisprudence . . . that parties 

may not unilaterally supplement the record on appeal with evidence not reviewed by the 

court below.”). Moreover, even if the Court permitted Plaintiffs to supplement the record 

with the declarations, those declarations were not part of the record before this Court 

when it issued its September 19, 2013 Order, which Plaintiffs have appealed. (Doc. 101.) 

Thus, granting Plaintiffs’ motion would be futile because the appellate court generally 

only considers the record that was before the district court when it made the decision that 

is at issue on appeal. See United States v. Walker, 601 F.2d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir. 1988) 

(“We are concerned here only with the record before the trial judge when his decision 

was made”); Heath v. Helmick, 173 F.2d 156, 156-57 (9th Cir. 1949) (striking from the 

record on appeal papers that were filed in the district court after judgment from which the 

appeal was taken). 

B. Newly Discovered Evidence 

 Plaintiffs also argue that these declarations are “new evidence [that] was not

discovered until well after the Summary Judgment Motion and Oppositions were briefed” 

(Doc. 98 at 3 (emphasis in original)), and that “[t]his newly discovered evidence was not 

earlier available.” (Doc. 100 at 2). Plaintiffs, however, do not argue that these 

declarations were not available to them before the Court ruled on the pending dispositive 

motions. Indeed, the declarations are dated approximately two months before the Court’s 

order. In addition, there is nothing in the declarations to suggest that the declarants are 

Case 2:12-cv-01724-BSB Document 103 Filed 10/18/13 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

offering newly-formed opinions or opinions based on information that was not available 

before Plaintiffs filed their motion for summary judgment or responded to Defendants’ 

motions. Therefore, the Court finds that these declarations are not newly discovered 

evidence and that there are no “unusual circumstances” that would allow Plaintiffs to 

supplement the record with materials that were not before the Court when it considered 

the parties’ dispositive motions. See Lowry, 329 F.3d at 1024. 

C. Pretrial Conference 

 Finally, Plaintiffs assert that they “were entirely deprived of a case management 

conference” (Doc. 98 at 2) and that the Court “”refus[ed] to schedule a case management 

conference.” (Doc. 100 at 3.) The parties, however, did not request a pretrial conference 

at any time, they did not make any request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) 

for discovery to respond to the pending dispositive motions, and they did they make any 

other request for discovery or a scheduling order.1

 

 Instead, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment before they filed their 

second amended complaint, which was the operative complaint in this matter, and they 

asserted that “there is no issue as to any material fact and that they are entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law.” (Doc. 28 at 1.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs opposed 

Defendants’ request to stay briefing on summary judgment to allow the Court to first rule 

on their motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs asserted that any delay in ruling on their “valid 

well-documented” motion for summary judgment was “prejudicial” to Plaintiffs. 

(Doc. 32 at 1-2.) Plaintiffs sought an immediate ruling and did not express any concerns 

about the manner in which the case was progressing. 

 Plaintiffs raise this issue for the first time after receiving an adverse ruling and 

after the entry of judgment. Plaintiffs do not explain how the Court’s case management 

 

1

 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.) 

Case 2:12-cv-01724-BSB Document 103 Filed 10/18/13 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

prevented them from timely or appropriately submitting declarations to support their 

motion for summary judgment or to respond to Defendants’ motions. Given the 

procedural posture of the case, in which dispositive motions were filed at the outset of the 

case, and the Court was actively involved in setting briefing deadlines and in case 

management (Docs. 10, 15, 18, 25, 35, 39, 47, 48, 56), Plaintiffs have not shown that a 

scheduling order would have allowed them to submit additional evidence to support their 

motion for summary judgment or to respond to Defendants’ motions. Therefore, 

Plaintiffs have not shown that they should now be allowed to supplement the record for 

appeal. 

III. Conclusion 

 Plaintiffs were not deprived of any opportunities to fully present their claims to 

this Court. In the pending motion, Plaintiffs do not seek any further opportunity to 

present their claims to this Court. Rather, they seek to present their claims and additional 

evidence to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs have not cited any legal 

authority to support their argument that the district court can expand the record solely for 

the purpose of appellate review, nor have Plaintiffs established any unusual 

circumstances that would authorize the Court to supplement the record for this purpose. 

Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Submit Additional Evidence and 

Supplement the Record for Appeal (Doc. 98) is DENIED. 

 Dated this 18th day of October, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-01724-BSB Document 103 Filed 10/18/13 Page 5 of 5