Opinion ID: 75776
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: K.C.'s Motion to Supplement the Record

Text: 17 K.C. also claims the district court erred by denying her motion to supplement the record. This motion was made on April 30, 1999, more than a year after the close of discovery and the identification of Dr. Rostetter as a supplementary witness for the Board. Although K.C. had opposed Plaintiff's motion to add an expert, at no time prior to the eve of trial did [she] request that the Court allow [her] leave to designate an expert of [her] own. Sch. Bd. v. K.C., No. 97-19-CIV-FTM-25D (M.D. Fla. June 21, 1999) (Order denying K.C.'s Motion To Add Expert). [D]istrict courts enjoy broad discretion in deciding how best to manage the cases before them. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1366 (11th Cir.1997). Thus, we cannot say the decision to refuse K.C.'s untimely motion constituted reversible error. 5