Link Motion Inc. v. DLA Piper LLP
- Victor Marrero
- 1:22-cv-08313
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Link Motion v. DLA Piper, Judge Marrero granted Link Motion’s request to add two related-case pleadings to the appellate record.
Link Motion Inc. obtained permission to supplement the appellate record with two pleadings from a related case. DLA Piper LLP (US) and Caryn G. Schechtman opposed the request, but the court found no identified prejudice to them.
What happened
In Link Motion Inc. v. DLA Piper LLP (US), Link Motion asked the court to add the complaint and second amended complaint from a related case to the record for its appeal. DLA Piper LLP (US) and Caryn G. Schechtman opposed the request.
The court explained that appellate records may be supplemented when important material was left out by mistake or accident, and that the documents had been considered in this case. The court also found that adding them would help explain how it reached its decisions and that the defendants identified no prejudice.
Judge Victor Marrero granted Link Motion’s request and directed that the two documents be added to the appellate record and sent forward for certification. The order addressed only the appellate record, not the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Link Motion Inc. v. DLA Piper LLP · No. 1:22-cv-08313
- Victor Marrero
- Aug. 16, 2023
Background
Link Motion Inc. moved under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e)(2) to supplement the record in its appeal. It asked the court to add the Complaint and Second Amended Complaint filed in the related matter, Baliga v. Link Motion Inc., No. 18 Civ. 11642 (S.D.N.Y.). DLA Piper LLP (US) and Caryn G. Schechtman opposed the request.
Legal standard
Rule 10(e)(2) permits a district court to modify or supplement an appellate record when material has been omitted from or misstated in the record by error or accident. The court discussed Second Circuit decisions explaining that supplementation may also be appropriate when the documents would clarify how the district court reached the decision being appealed, particularly when the district court considered those documents.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that the Complaint and Second Amended Complaint were not outside the record before it. The court had referred to and considered both documents from the related matter when making decisions in this action. Although Link Motion did not acknowledge that it had made a mistake by failing to attach the documents to filings in this case, the court found it reasonable to treat the omission as an oversight. The defendants did not identify any prejudice that would result from supplementation.
Disposition
The court GRANTS Link Motion’s request. It directed that the omission of the Complaint and Second Amended Complaint be corrected and that a supplemental record containing those documents could be certified and forwarded as part of the record on appeal. This order concerns the appellate record and does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.