CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-1819.
January 5, 2009
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Umekki L. Green's ("Green") Motion to Supplement Record [Doc. No. 26]. Green seeks to add approximately 25 exhibits to the record in support of her appeal of this Court's summary judgment ruling. Defendants oppose the Motion. [Doc. No. 30]. For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
On November 10, 2008, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and dismissed Green's claims. [Doc. Nos. 21 22]. Prior to the Court's ruling, Green did not file a memorandum in opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, seek an extension of time to file a memorandum in opposition, nor seek a Rule 56(f) postponement of the summary judgment ruling. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(f) (permitting the nonmovant to seek a continuance to obtain controverting affidavits or necessary discovery). Green's attempt to supplement the record now is untimely and unwarranted as she has not asserted that the proposed evidence was previously unavailable. See Bernhardt v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 892 F.2d 440, 444 (5th Cir. 1990) (holding that Rule 56(f) "would become useless, and the summary judgment procedure uncontrolled, if a court could not enforce some limits on the timely submission of appropriate evidence"); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(1) (permitting the court to provide relief from judgment on the basis of newly discovered evidence that could not have been timely discovered with reasonable diligence). Although Green is proceeding pro se, her lack of counsel does not excuse her failure to oppose summary judgment in a timely manner.
Accordingly, Green's Motion to Supplement Record [Doc. No. 26] is DENIED.