Opinion ID: 782349
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Motion to Supplement the Record

Text: 12 Before addressing the merits of this appeal, we must resolve Inland Bulk's motion to supplement the record, which was filed on March 29, 2002. Inland Bulk seeks to supplement the record with four documents that allegedly show that the parties agreed upon Revision B as their contract. None of these documents was considered by the district court at the time of its ruling. The first is an internal invoice of Cummins's, dated December 10, 1998, which states that Revision B is the proper contract between the parties. The second is a change order request from Cummins, dated September 2, 1998, also listing Revision B as the operative contract. The third piece of evidence is a copy of Revision B with the original price, $558,270, crossed out and a new price $545,190, written in. 4 Inland Bulk does not state where this copy of Revision B came from, and the document has no date on it other than the date that Revision B was sent to Inland Bulk. 13 The fourth and final piece of evidence is a handwritten copy of the district judge's notes from a status conference. This status conference, which took place on April 24, 2002, addressed Inland Bulk's motion in the district court to supplement the record on appeal. 5 In rejecting Inland Bulk's motion to supplement the record, the district judge suggested that his decision on the arbitration-related issues was predicated on his belief that Revision B was the operative version of the contract. 14 Inland Bulk argues that we should allow the record to be supplemented with this new evidence either under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e), the inherent powers of this court, or the rule that district courts retain jurisdiction to handle matters in aid of the appeal. Upon reflection, we deny Inland Bulk's motion to supplement the record. 15
16 Inland Bulk contends that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e) allows the admission of these pieces of evidence. Normally, the record on appeal consists of the original papers and exhibits filed in the district court, the transcript of proceedings, if any and a certified copy of the docket entries prepared by the district clerk. Fed.R.App.P. 10(a). However, if anything material to either party is omitted from or misstated in the record by error or accident, the rule allows the omission or misstatement [to] be corrected and a supplemental record [to] be certified and forwarded. Fed.R.App.P. 10(e)(2). Rule 10(e) allows correction of the record either by agreement of the parties, by order of the district court, or by order of the court of appeals. Fed.R.App.P. 10(e)(2). However, as is clear from the rule's wording, [t]he purpose of the rule is to allow the [] court to correct omissions from or misstatements in the record for appeal, not to introduce new evidence in the court of appeals. S & E Shipping Corp. v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 678 F.2d 636, 641 (6th Cir.1982). In general, the appellate court should have before it the record and facts considered by the District Court. United States v. Barrow, 118 F.3d 482, 487 (6th Cir.1997); cf. Sovereign News Co. v. United States, 690 F.2d 569, 571 (6th Cir.1982) (A party may not by-pass the fact-finding process of the lower court and introduce new facts in brief on appeal.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 814, 104 S.Ct. 69, 78 L.Ed.2d 83 (1983). 17 Rule 10(e) does not justify supplementation of the record in this case. Inland Bulk's motion to supplement the record is not aimed towards correcting some misstatement or omission in the district court's record. Inland Bulk has not even suggested that the record inaccurately reports the proceedings in the district court. Instead, Inland Bulk is simply attempting to add new material that was never considered by the district court. This is not permitted under the rule. 18
19 Inland Bulk next claims that we should permit the record to be supplemented under the equitable power of this court. Several circuits have held that they have an inherent equitable authority to supplement the record on appeal under circumstances where Fed.R.App.P. 10 would not apply. See United States v. Kennedy, 225 F.3d 1187, 1192 (10th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 943, 121 S.Ct. 1406, 149 L.Ed.2d 348 (2001); Ross v. Kemp, 785 F.2d 1467, 1474 n. 12 (11th Cir.1986); Turk v. United States, 429 F.2d 1327, 1329 (8th Cir.1970). Commentators have noticed this inherent equitable power as well, although they point out that the practice is only justified in rare instances. See 16A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 3956.4, at 349-51 (3d ed. 1999 & Supp.2003) (In special circumstances, however, a court of appeals may permit supplementation of the record to add material not presented to the district court.); 20 Moore's Federal Practice § 310.10[5][f], at 310-19 (3d ed. 2000) (In extraordinary situations, the circuit court may consider material not presented to the district court when it believes the interests of justice are at stake.). While other circuits have embraced the notion that the record can be supplemented under an appellate court's equitable authority, we as of yet have not. See Chrysler Int'l Corp. v. Cherokee Exp. Co., No. 97-1003, 1998 WL 45488, at  (6th Cir. Jan.27, 1998); see also Hadix v. Johnson, 144 F.3d 925, 945 (6th Cir.1998) (noting that `[b]ecause of their very potency,' the inherent powers of the courts `must be exercised with restraint and discretion') (citations omitted). 20 We will not allow Inland Bulk to supplement the record pursuant to any inherent equitable power this court may have. Even assuming such a power exists, we do not find any special circumstances present that would justify its exercise here. Most of the new evidence Inland Bulk seeks to add to the record could have been presented to the district court below, and none of it establishes beyond doubt the proper disposition of this case. See CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 330 (11th Cir.2000) (A primary factor which we consider in deciding a motion to supplement the record is whether acceptance of the proffered material into the record would establish beyond any doubt the proper resolution of the pending issues.). Lastly, we need not consider this new information because the point Inland Bulk is trying to establish with this material — that Revision B (rather than Revision A) is the operative contract between the parties — is ultimately not material to our legal analysis, as we will explain later. 21
22 Finally, Inland Bulk makes the claim that there is a particular justification for supplementation of the record with the district judge's handwritten notes because they were created in aid of the appeal. It is established that the filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction and transfers jurisdiction to the court of appeals, but that the district court retains jurisdiction to proceed with matters that are in aid of the appeal. Cochran v. Birkel, 651 F.2d 1219, 1221 (6th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1152, 102 S.Ct. 1020, 71 L.Ed.2d 307 (1982). Several appellate courts have allowed district courts to use this exception to memorialize oral opinions soon after a decision was rendered; that action has been considered one in aid of the appeal. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings Under Seal, 947 F.2d 1188, 1190 (4th Cir.1991) (considering a district court's written opinion that memorialized its oral ruling made one day earlier, even though the written opinion was subsequent to the appellant's filing of the notice of appeal); Blaine v. Whirlpool Corp., 891 F.2d 203, 204 (8th Cir.1989) (considering a district court's written opinion filed one week after the appellants filed their notice of appeal from the district court's oral ruling); see generally Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 3949.1, at 51 (3d ed.1999). However, appellate courts have generally prevented trial courts from developing supplemental findings after the notice of appeal has been filed. See Pro Sales, Inc. v. Texaco, U.S.A., 792 F.2d 1394, 1396 n. 1 (9th Cir.1986) (noting that the losing party had already filed its notice of appeal, and therefore the district court had no power to amend its opinion [with a supplemental explanation] at the time it attempted to do so); see also Ced's Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 745 F.2d 1092, 1095 (7th Cir.1984) (coming to the same conclusion and stating that [t]he parties to an appeal are entitled to have a stable set of conclusions of law on which they can rely in preparing their briefs), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1015, 105 S.Ct. 2017, 85 L.Ed.2d 299 (1985). The distinction, although sometimes blurred, is between actions that merely aid the appellate process and actions that alter the case on appeal. Allan Ides, The Authority of a Federal District Court to Proceed After a Notice of Appeal Has Been Filed, 143 F.R.D. 307, 323 (1992). 23 We hold that the in aid of the appeal exception is inapposite in this case. First, there is no indication that the district judge's comments were actually created to aid the appeal. The district judge's comments were not directed to this court for our consideration. Instead, they were off-hand, handwritten comments, never published or formalized. They were apparently made in a status conference that occurred roughly a year and a half after the notice of appeal was filed, at which the district court considered a motion to supplement the record with certain documents. There is no evidence that these comments were meant to aid our analysis. Second, we note that Inland Bulk is not prejudiced by our refusal to consider the purported legal conclusions or reasoning of the district judge created a year and a half after his ruling because in any event we give no deference to such material on de novo review. For all these reasons, Inland Bulk's motion to supplement the record must be denied.