Opinion ID: 902503
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bell’s Motion to Supplement the Record

Text: Before oral argument, Bell moved this court to allow her to supplement the record with additional evidence she acquired from the FDA’s “website identifying various marketing and promotional materials that manufacturers of generic drugs have used to provide physicians and consumers with information about their products.” Bell contends the additional evidence refutes Pliva’s contention that “as a generic manufacturer it was prohibited by federal law from disseminating any labeling or information concerning its drug under any and all circumstances.” Bell also asks to -4- supplement the record with her response to the brand defendants’ motion for summary judgment to show she did not abandon certain claims. We deny Bell’s motion. Bell’s district court brief is already part of the record we have reviewed. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a)(1) (explaining the record includes all “the original papers and exhibits filed in the district court”). And we find no compelling reason to allow Bell to supplement the record with evidence available from the FDA long before the district court decided this case. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(e); Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 988 F.2d 61, 63 (8th Cir. 1993) (explaining our authority to enlarge the record when the interests of justice demand it, but noting we rarely exercise this narrow exception to the general rule that the appellate court only consider evidence contained in the record before the district court).