ORDER

DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is the parties' joint stipulation, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e) and Seventh Circuit Rule 10(b), asking the Court to supplement the appellate record in Bishop et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Nos. 15-1067 — 15-1081 (7th Cir.), Case Nos. 3:12-cv-50014, 3:12-cv-50015, 3:12-50017, 3:13-cv 50007, 3:13-cv-51221, 3:13-cv-51222, 3:13-cv-51224, 3:13-cv-51223, 3:13-cv-51234, 3:13-cv-51231, 3:13-cv-51233, 3:13-cv-51232, 3:13-cv-51306, 3:13-cv-51312, and 3:13-cv-51842 (S.D. Ill.). The parties ask the Court to supplement the record with this Court's Case Management Order 88, 3:12-md-02385, Doc. 611 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 29, 2014). The parties also ask the Court to supplement the record with Plaintiffs' Supplemental Response to Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and Report Submitted by Claims Administrator and its attachments.1 (Bishop, 3:12-cv-50014 Doc. 26 and 26-1 through 26-4) with plaintiffs' supplemental response to motion to dismiss (and associated exhibits) filed in each member action. The parties note that because CMO 88 was filed in the master docket only, it was not included in the original "short record" as transmitted to the Seventh Circuit.

The Court notes that the Seventh Circuit's Practitioner's Handbook for Appeals states that the "short record" is transmitted to the Seventh Circuit for screening purposes (assessing jurisdiction) and contains "the notice of appeal, the Cir. R. 3(c) docketing statement (if filed), the judgment(s) or order(s) appealed, and the district court docket sheet." Thus, the "short record" is not typically supplemented as requested by the parties.

With regard to supplementing the record on appeal, the Court notes as follows. The record on appeal has been prepared in each subject member action. The record prepared in each member action already includes the requested supplemental response to motion to dismiss with prejudice and its attachments. Thus, the request to supplement as to this pleading and its attachments is unnecessary. Case Management Order Number 88, however, has not been included in the record on appeal. Thus, the Court will supplement the record, in each of the subject member actions, with Case Management Order Number 88. The Court further notes that although the record has been prepared and will be supplemented with Case Management Order Number 88, the record will not be transmitted to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals until it is requested by the Appellate Court. See Circuit Rule 11(a).2

To the extent that the parties are filing a stipulation in accord with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 11(g)3 they should file a supplemental pleading with this Court so noting. Likewise, to the extent the parties are asking the Court to transmit the record to the Court of appeals "at an earlier time" as described in Circuit Rule 11(a) they should file a supplemental pleading so noting.

In conclusion, the request to supplement the record with the referenced supplemental response and its exhibits is DENIED as unnecessary. The request to supplement the record with CMO 88 is GRANTED. The Court directs the Clerk to supplement the record, in each member action, with Case Management Order Number 88 (3:12-md-02385, Doc. 611). To the extent that the parties are seeking additional action from the Court, they should file a supplemental pleading with the Court as described herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.