Opinion ID: 782349
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Supplementation Under the In Aid of the Appeal Exception

Text: 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.