Opinion ID: 64891
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: other issues raised by garza on appeal

Text: Garza presents several other issues on appeal: (1) whether the case lasted too long because the district court allowed a number of procedural irregularities and extensions, (2) whether the court erroneously allowed LISD to admit a document filed forty-six days late, (3) whether LISD distorted facts to the court with regards to the filing of the parties’ Joint Pretrial Order, (4) whether the court’s integrity was placed at risk when the judge referred to LISD’s attorney by name, (5) whether LISD engaged in improper conduct by taking depositions and not notifying the opposing party, (6) whether the court’s integrity was placed at risk by making a comment in a local newspaper about corruption among South Texas police forces, and (7) whether the court misled Garza to believe that the parties were heading toward a trial and not a grant of summary judgment, thereby denying Garza due process. Issue (1) fails. District court judges have broad discretion in managing the docket. Sims v. ANR Freight Sys., 77 F.3d 846, 849 (5th Cir. 1996). “Speed is necessary, and the limited capabilities of the judicial system certainly should be considered in determining whether to impose limits on the introduction of 9 No. 08-40387 evidence and the length of trial. However, such considerations must be addressed with a cautious respect for the requirements necessary to achieve a fair trial.” Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 61, issue (2) fails. Rule 61 states: Unless justice requires otherwise, no error in admitting or excluding evidence — or any other error by the court or a party — is ground for granting a new trial, for setting aside a verdict, or for vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order. At every stage of the proceeding, the court must disregard all errors and defects that do not affect any party's substantial rights. A review of the record does not demonstrate that the length of the proceedings or the court’s decision to allow LISD to file late documents affected Garza’s substantial rights. Issues (1) and (2) are DENIED. Issues (3)-(7) are presented for the first time on appeal. Generally, arguments presented for the first time on appeal will not be considered. Holiday Inn, Inc. v. C. H. Alberding, 683 F.2d 931, 933-34 (5th Cir. 1982). “In the absence of exceptional circumstances where a miscarriage of justice would result, a condition not present here, questions that were not presented to or passed on by the trial court will not be considered on appeal.” D. H. Overmyer Co. v. Loflin, 440 F.2d 1213, 1215 (5th Cir. 1971). Even assuming arguendo that issues (3)-(7) present pure issues of law, they do not present “exceptional circumstances” as required by this Court’s precedent.