Opinion ID: 3012740
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Supplement Summary Judgment Record

Text: 4 Our conclusion may have been different if Edwards had provided sufficient proof that the supervisors who made the remarks were involved with the decisions leading to her termination. The district court denied Edwards’ motion to supplement the summary judgment record, which was made more than five months after discovery had closed. We review the district court’s decision using an abuse of discretion standard. An abuse of discretion is found where we are left with the “definite and firm conviction that the trial court committed a clear error of judgment.” Logan v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 865 F.2d 789, 790 (6th Cir., 1989) The evidence Edwards sought to introduce was merely corroborative of evidence already on the record and would not have altered the decision of the district court. We find that the ruling of the district court denying Edwards’ motion to supplement the record was therefore not an abuse of discretion.