Filed: Nov. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 25, 2019
Summary: RULING AND ORDER BRIAN A. JACKSON , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Limited Relief (Doc. 293). Defendants seek to submit three documents and their attachments from the record in this matter to the United States Supreme Court to use as evidence in the upcoming matter styled June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Gee, Nos. 18-1460, 18-1323 (" June I "). Defendants intend to use these documents to demonstrate that the plaintiffs in June I lack third-party standing b
Summary: RULING AND ORDER BRIAN A. JACKSON , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Limited Relief (Doc. 293). Defendants seek to submit three documents and their attachments from the record in this matter to the United States Supreme Court to use as evidence in the upcoming matter styled June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Gee, Nos. 18-1460, 18-1323 (" June I "). Defendants intend to use these documents to demonstrate that the plaintiffs in June I lack third-party standing be..
More
RULING AND ORDER
BRIAN A. JACKSON, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Limited Relief (Doc. 293). Defendants seek to submit three documents and their attachments from the record in this matter to the United States Supreme Court to use as evidence in the upcoming matter styled June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Gee, Nos. 18-1460, 18-1323 ("June I"). Defendants intend to use these documents to demonstrate that the plaintiffs in June I lack third-party standing because their interests are adverse to their patients. (Doc. 293-1, at 1). Plaintiffs, who are also plaintiffs in June I, oppose this motion. See (Doc. 302).
While the evidence sought may well be relevant to Defendants' arguments in June I, the record in that matter is closed, and appellate records are limited to materials filed with the district court in that case. FED. R. APP. P. 10(a). The Fifth Circuit has long held to this well-established principle—"[m]aterial that was not presented in district court and is not a part of the record on appeal is not considered." United States v. Crawford, 205 F.3d 1337 (5th Cir. 1999); see also Weathersby v. One Source Mfg. Tech., L.L.C., 378 F. App'x 463, 466 (5th Cir. 2010). Even with material from the record of related and pending litigation between the same parties, this Circuit has refused to enlarge the record on appeal to include material not before the district court in the matter before the Court of Appeals. Kemlon Prod. & Dev. Co. v. United States, 646 F.2d 223, 224 (5th Cir. 1981).
Moreover, Defendants cite no authority or legal support whatsoever to show why the Court should deviate from this fundamental rule of appellate procedure.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Limited Relief (Doc. 293) is DENIED.1
