Opinion ID: 162311
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to File Supplemental Statement

Text: Farmington argues that it should have been allowed to file a supplemental statement regarding Deitz’s abandonment of her defamation claims. It argues that this abandonment ended Farmington’s duty to defend and increased the amount UE should contribute. The district court denied Farmington’s motion as untimely. -6- A district court’s evidentiary decisions relevant to a summary judgment ruling are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Wright-Simmons v. City of Oklahoma City , 155 F.3d 1264, 1268 (10th Cir. 1998). The trial court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is “arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable.” United States v. Hernandez-Herrera , 952 F.2d 342, 343 (10th Cir. 1991). Farmington made its motion to file a supplemental statement seventeen months after the pre-trial order withdrawing Deitz’s defamation claim was entered. The district court had already heard oral arguments on the liability phase of Farmington’s case, and issued its written opinion the same day Farmington filed its motion. While Farmington asserts that it did not realize that Deitz had dropped all of her defamation claims until immediately before it filed its motion, it should have learned this from the publicly filed July 1, 1998 order. Under such circumstances, we cannot say that the district court’s denial of the motion as untimely was arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable. Cf. Viernow v. Euripides Dev. Corp. , 157 F.3d 785, 800 (10th Cir. 1998) (finding no abuse of discretion in the denial as untimely of a motion to amend a complaint, where the motion was made 19 months after the original complaint was filed and after the judge had orally ruled on the matter on summary judgment); Singer v. Wadman , 745 F.2d 606, 608 (10th Cir. 1984) (finding no -7- abuse of discretion in the denial as untimely of a motion to recuse that was filed one year after the complaint was filed). Because we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Farmington’s motion, we need not consider Farmington’s arguments premised on Deitz’s abandonment of her defamation claims.