Opinion ID: 180983
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Full and Fair Presentation

Text: As a final matter, the Parkers have not proven that Wal-Mart’s failure to produce the 2003 Guidelines prevented them from fully and fairly presenting 7 Case: 10-60236 Document: 00511319733 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/13/2010 No. 10-60236 their case. The Parkers argue that they were prejudiced by Wal-Mart’s failure to produce the 2003 Guidelines because they were unable to argue that WalMart had violated its internal safety policies at the time of Mrs. Parker’s injury. See Rozier, 573 F.2d at 1342 (“Inevitably, information developed in the discovery stages of the case influenced the decision as to which theories would be emphasized at trial.”). We disagree. The 2003 and 2004 Guidelines contain identical language regarding curb maintenance. Based on that language, derived from the 2004 Guidelines, the Parkers developed expert testimony on Wal-Mart’s standard of care and breach of that standard of care. The Parkers supported their opposition to Wal-Mart’s motion for summary judgment with an expert affidavit concluding Wal-Mart breached its standard of care based on those same guidelines, which the Parkers now contend were not applicable at the time of the accident. Finally, the Parkers directed this court, after withdrawing their motion to supplement the record when appealing the district court’s grant of summary judgment, to treat the 2004 Guidelines as evidence of Wal-Mart’s negligence. Wal-Mart’s production of the 2004 Guidelines clearly did not make “a difference in the way [the Parkers’] counsel approached the case or prepared for trial.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Parker’s Rule 60(b)(3) motion.