Clehm v. BAE Systems Ordinance Systems, Inc. et al, No. 7:2016cv00012 - Document 244 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 01/11/2019. (aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' S OFFICE U,s.DlsTLCOURT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED IN TH E U N ITE D STATE S D ISTRICT CO U RT FO R T H E W ESTE RN D ISTRICT O F W R GIN IA ROAN O U D IW SIO N JAN 11 2019 JULI.C. DLEY, - CLERK BY: > DEPUR CL- CART,A A.CLE H M Plaintiff, CivilAction N o.7:16-cv-00012 V. BAE SYSTEM S O RD N AN CE SYSTE M S,IN C .,MISLZ By:H on.M ichaelY.U tbahsld ChiefU nited StatesDistrivtJudge . D efendants. M E M O RAN D U M O PIN IO N 1. Tllismatterisbeforethecol't'fonPlniniffCarlaA.Clehm's(<fclehm')Modonto CotrecttheRecotdpursuanttoRule10(e)(2)7)oftheFederalRulesofAppellate Procedure.ECF No.241.Thecitcumstancesgivingtiseto thismodon areasfollows:On June29,2017,Clehm flled aM emorandum in Opposidon to DefendantBAE SystemsInc.'s (TKBAEAA)M odonfotSummaryludgment,ECFNo.160,attgching65exhibits.Clehm flled asECF N o.160-57,discovery docum entsproduced byBAE with Batesstam psBAE 17811783.The docllm entsattached apparently were notthe correctdocum ents.D uting discovery,BAE inadvertently produced to Clehm discovery docum entswith Batesstam ps thatw ere tepedtive ofBatesstam psthathgd previously bçen used.BAE corrected this Clehm v. BAE Systems Ordinance Systems, Inc. et al Doc. 244 production errorwithin threedays,reproducing these docum entswith corrected Bates . stampsand an explanatorycoverlettetonM ay25,2017.Nevertheless,onlune29,2017, Clehm ûled asECF N o.160-57 theTçftrstsey''ofdocum entsproducçd with Batesstam ps Dockets.Justia.com BAE 1781-1783.Clehm çlnim sthatsheintended to attach the <fsecond set''ofdocllm ents . pp duced with BatesstampsBAE 1781-1783. II. On December4,2017,thecourtgrantedBAE'SMotion forSummaryludgment. ECFNo.1f8.FollowingtheentrypfûnaljudgmentonAugust28,2018,Clehm flleda N odceofAppealwith theU nited StatesCpurtofAppealsfortheFourth Citcuit,appealing . thegzantofsummaryjudgmentdismissingBAE from thecase.OnDecember14,2018, Clehm flled them otion presently beforethecourt.In thism odon,Clehm seeksto replace a pal'toftherecotd,ECFNo.160-57,underappealwithExllibit3 (includedinhermodon)to correcttheattachm enterrordescribed it . lp-m.Onlanuary7,2019,BAE flledateqponseto . Clehm'smoéon,ECF No.242,statingthatitdoesnotobjecttothemodon toalterthe record,butbelievesitwould beinappropriate to rem ove doplm entsfrom therecord that werepartoftherecordwhen thecouttiçndereditssummaryjudgmentruling.BAE also m akesacm cialobserp don:regardlessofwhetherClehm intended to includethe docum ents contained in Exhibit3,i.e.,the fdsecond set''ofdocum entsproduced w1:.1, 1Batesstam ps BAE 1781-1783,these docllm entswereneitherreceived norreviewed by the courtwhen it granted BAE'Smotion forsummaryjudgment.Onlanuary7,2019,Clelnm flled areply,ECF N o.243,to BAE'Sm sponseindicadng thatitdid notoppose ECF N o.167-57 rem aining pattthe record.Fo! thereasonssetforth herein,thecouytwitlDE N Y Clehm 'sm oéon. 111. Rule10(e)oftheFederalRulesofAppellateProceduzeallowsadistrictcourtto supplem enttherecord thatwaspreviously before it.UndertheRtlle,a disttictcotutm ay modifyorsupplementthezecord on appeal:(1)ffifanydifferencearisesastowhatacttzally occurred beforeiti''or(2)Tïifanythingmaterialto eitherpartyisonaitted from therecord by vrrororaccident.''Id.;accord I-linalerv.Com rehensiveCare Co ..,790 F.supp.114,115 (E.D.Va.1992).Therecord on appealconsistsofTdtheoriginalpapersand exhibitsflledin thedistticycoutt,the ttanscriptofptoceedings,ifany,and a cerdfied copy ofthe docket enttiespreparedbytheclerkofthedisttictcotttt.''Fed.R.App.P.10(a). Itiswell-settledthatTfthepuposeofRule10(e)isnottoallow adistrictcourttoadd to the tecord m attersthatdid notocctu therein the course oftheproceeclingsleading to the judgmentunderreviem ''JA9accordRutecldv.CSX Hotels,Inc.,2007U.S.Dist.LEM S 44954,at*14(S.D.W .Va.June20,2007).Indeed,theclearweightof,authorityindicatesthat adistriqtcourtshouldproperlyrefusetosupplementiherecordonappealwithcliscovery docllm entsthatwere dfnotftled ...orbroughtto the attention ofthedistdctcourt,asit çonsideredthevriouspapçrsinevaluatingthemodonforsummaryjudgment''Roebou h v.W ethLabs.lnc.,916F.2d 970,973-74,n.8 (4t.h Cit.1990)9W heelerv.Anchor Continental,Inc.,1979U.S.Dist.LEXIS8438,1979W L 520 .5.C.1979)Clkule10(e) providesno basisfot augm enéng therecord to include evidencewllich wasneverbefotethe disttictcou. rt.''l;Thomaqv.Lod eNo.2461ofDist.Lod e74oftheInt'lAss'nof MachinistsAndAeto.W orkers,348F.Supp.zd708,710(E.D.Va.2004)rfrihepumoseof Rule10(e)isnoyto allow aclistrictcollt'ttoadd to therecordon appealmattersthatclidnot occuztherein thecourseoftheproceedingsleadingto thejudgmentunderreviem ''' (citgdonornittedl);Com bintofRobinsMaritimeInc.,162F.R.D.502,504(E.D.Va.1995) (callingtheaboveruleKfwell-settled');16A Fed.Prac.& Proc.llAt1 's.j3956.4 (4th ed. ) 3 rfgq rclinarilyRule10(e)shotzldnotbeusedtoinsertintherecorditemsthataregot properly a partofit- such asm aterialsthatwere notptesented to the disttictcourtdlxting thelitigadon that1ed to thechallenged district-collt'truling.''). In Am tv.Vir 'nia State Urziversi ,thecourtdid note thatseveralcourtsoutside of theFouzth Citcuithaveheld thatthezeazeceztain sim adonsinwhich adijtrictcouttm ay supplem enttherecotd with m atetialthatw asnotprevioùsly beforeit.N o.3407cv628,2009 W L 1208203,at*3(E.D.Va.May4,2009).TheAmrcourtnoted,however,thatthisissue wasaddressed in theEastern D isttictofVirginiain acasew here the pbindffsrelied on f<a vein ofprecedent''outside ofthe Folzrth Citcuitwllich pernaitted ffappellatecourtsto con7iderm attersnotincludqd in the appenatetecord fin theintem stsofl 'ustice.' .''Id. (quoéngFreeclman Le litoll& Simmonsv.Mendelson,197F.R.D.276,279(E.D.Va. 2000).In Mendelson,thecourtnoted thefffou. tgeneralcitcumstancesinwllich federal appellatecouttsgcould .1considermattetsbeyondtherecord on appealasamatterofinherent disctedon.''Id.Thefourcirclzmstanceswere:(1)Tfan appçllatecourtruling suasponteon quesdonoflaw neitherarguedbeforkthetrialcourtnotexpresslyraisedonappeali''(2)ffan appellateçolzrtreviewingprobablecauseand otherpzoteduralm atters... gin)considedng evidence presented in pretrialproceeclingsbutnotproperlybroughtbeforethetrialcouttor . indudedintheappellaterecordi''(3)ffanappeltecourt...exercisingitsinherentdisçredon in theintetestofjusdceto considerevidencenotconsidezed bythetrialcourq''and (4)fran appellatecotutconsidering sug spontem ixed issuesoflaw and facynotspeciicallyraised in the distsictcotzrt.''1d.at279-80. TheM endelson cotutultim ately held thattheplaindffshad ffcited no instancesin whichadistrictcourtacHngunderRule10(e)supplementedamcordalreadyonappealv'ith documentaryevidencenotextantatthetimeofthecourt'srulinp''1i at280.Thus,the coul'tdenied them otion to supplem epttherecord,obserdng thattheplaindffsTfm ay benefh on appealfrom theinhezentdisczedon ofthe Folzt'th Citcuity''butthatclistzictcouttsm ust decline<êtoexceedthescopeof(Rtzleq10(e).''Id. To date,theFour 'th Circuiihasyetto follow itssistetcircuitsby exercising its fv herenydisczedon''in thism anner,and num erousdecisionsofcourtsin thiscircuitand beyond m ilitateagainstpet-m iténg Clehm to ffcorrect''therecord.Seee.g..Thom as,348 F.supp.zdat711(E.D.Va.2004)rfgljtisnotappropdateforthisCoutttosupplementthe recozd hereby adding thepleapgreement. 7);Huelsman v.CivicCtr.Co .,873F.2d 1171, , 1175n.3(8th Cir.1989)rfrflheappellaterecordconsistsonlyofthosefactsandmaterial presented forthedisttictcourt'sconsideradon.7);Henn v.Nat'lGeo a hicSoc.,819 F.2d 824,831(7th Cit.1987)((<Thepardesmayrelyon appealonlyon materials6ltnishedto the clistdctJ 'udge.'').In short,therecord on appealcannotcontain anydocumentsorevidence thatwetenotfiledinthetrialcouttpriottojudgment.Inothetwords,<fapartymaynot fraiseaddidonalissuesnorbelatedly supplem enttherecord'on appealwith docum entsthat allegedlyincludefproop ofan issuein theacdon,ifthose docum entswere notpresented to tlae trialcouzt.''N e ortN ewsH oldin sCo .v.VirtualCi Vision Inc.,N o.4:08CV 19, 2010WL 11566374,at*2(E.D.Va.May11,2010)(ciéngSamuelsv.W ilder,871F.2d1346, 1354 Cth Cit.1989)).Thecourtfmdstheprevailingprecedentllighlypersuasive. Toreitemte,adisttictcotutmaymoclifyorsupplementtherecord:(1)ffifany differencearisesastowhatacmallyoccurredbeforeiti'?o. r(2)ffifanythingmaterialtoeither partyisomitted ftom therecozdbyerrororaçcident.''Fed.R.App.P.10(e).Neitherparty appeatstoclisputethecontentsoftherecordbeforethiscouttonsummaryjudgment. H ence,the only available groundsfotsupplem entaéon would beonaission oftheptoffered documentsinExhibit3 dueto fferrororaccident.''SeeidaTheterm fferrorozaccident''is ffbroadly interpreted to petvnittherecotd to be supplem ented by any m atterwhich is properlyapartthereof.''UnitedStatesv.Barrow,118F.3d482,488(6thCir.Mich.1997). Im portantly,supplem entadon ispetvnitted only ifthe Tferzororaccident''resulted in the ornission in theappellaterecord ofm aterialthatw aspattofthetdalrecord.H ete,Clehm seeksto supplem enttherecord on appeal* t. 1' 1docum entsthey concedewerenever presented to the ttialcoutt.In otherwords,Clehm 'sfailureto ptofferthe f<second set''of doclxm entsin question doesnotconsdm te an acdonable dfetrororaccident''ofthe sort contemplated underRule10(e).See,e.g.,Fassettv.DeltaKa aE silon,807 F.2d 1150, 1165(3zdC1.1986)(holdingthatthecourtisnotauthotizedunderRule10(e)Raugmentthe record on appealwith deposidon ttanscdptsthatw eze noton the tecord befcyeitattheHm e itsfnaldecisionwasrendered.');accordJonesv.JacksonNat'lLifeIns.Co.,819F.supp. 1385,1387 (W .D.Miçh.1993).Thetefore,itwouldbeimproperto Tfcorrecty''i.e., supplem entthe record on appealw1t. 11doclAm entsthatwere notbefore thiscourt(?n Summatyjudgement. IV . Fortheforegoingreasons,Clehm'sVodonto CorrecttheReçord,ECFNo.241,is D EN IED .The Clerk isdirected to send a copy ofthisM em orandllm Opinion to all counselofrecord. Itisso O RD ERE D . Entered: o/- // -2-w zî 4 /* 4rZ' *rJ/. V-'ZJ M ichaelF. a UrlitedS /ttesDisttictludge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
