Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:17-cv-02709_de69> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-02709_de69 RegisterActionDate "2019-04-10" @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-02709_de69 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin:Plaintiff's motion to supplement the record 68 is denied. Plaintiff seeks to supplement the record with a number of documents that were not before the Court during the summary judgment proceedings. She states that their omission was due to negligence and malice on the part of her appointed attorney, Mr. Michael Persoon. Unfortunately, that is not a sufficient basis for correction of the record now. Rule 10(e) allows for correction or modification of the record "[i]f any difference arises about whether the record truly discloses what occurred in the district court[.]" Fed. R. App. P. 10(e)(1). "[T]he difference must be submitted to and settled by [the district] court and the record conformed accordingly." Id. This rule is meant to ensure that the record reflects what really happened in the district court, but "not to enable the losing party to add new material to the record in order to collaterally attack the trial court's judgment." United States v. ElizaldeAdame, 262 F.3d 637, 641 (7th Cir. 2001). In this case, the documents submitted by Plaintiff were neither relied upon by the Court nor relevant to its decision; they cannot be added to the record pursuant to Rule 10(e). Mailed notice (srn, ) (Entered: 04/10/2019)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-02709_de69 AdministrativeID "69" @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-02709_de69 hasJudgeReference SJ000251 @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-02709_de69 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:17-cv-02709_de68 @default.