Burton, Sabina v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN SABINA BURTON, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM, CHANCELLOR DENNIS SHIELDS, JANELLE CROWLEY, DR. STACI STROBL, DEBORAH RICE, DR. MELISSA OPINION and ORDER GORMLEY, DR. ELIZABETH THROOP, ROBERT ATWELL, JOHN ROBERT BEHLING, JOSE 17-cv-36-jdp DELGADO, DR. TONY EVERS, MICHAEL GREBE, DR. EVE HALL, MIKE JONES, TRACEY KLEIN, REGINA MILLNER, JANICE MUELLER, DREW PETERSEN, CHRIS PETERSON, JASON PLANTE, RYAN RING, BRYAN STEIL, S. MARK TYLER, and GERALD WHITEBURN, Defendants. Plaintiff Sabina Burton moves to supplement the record on appeal. Dkt. 126. This is the second case Burton brought in this court concerning her employment as a professor at the University of Wisconsin—Platteville. The first case was decided against Burton on summary judgment. Burton v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wis. Sys. (Burton I), No. 14-cv-274 (W.D. Wis. filed Apr. 14, 2014). That decision was affirmed on appeal. Burton v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wis. Sys., 851 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2017). The opinion and order granting summary judgment in Burton I provides useful background to the court’s decision in this case. All the court’s orders in Burton I are public records subject to judicial notice, so there is no need to supplement the appellate record to include them. See In the Matter of Lisse, 905 F.3d 495, 496 (7th Cir. 2018). Burton asks that the appellate record for this case be supplemented with the entire record from Burton I. The court will deny Burton’s motion. The purpose of a motion to supplement the appellate record under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e) is to ensure that the record accurately reflects what happened in the district court. United States v. Banks, 405 F.3d 559, 567 (7th Cir. 2005). This case was decided on the summary judgment record submitted by the parties in this case. The underlying evidence in Burton I is no longer at issue. Neither side can show that the court’s ruling on summary judgment in this case is correct or incorrect by citing evidence, briefing, or other documents that are part of the record in Burton I but not part of the record in this case. The only point of revisiting the evidence in Burton I would be to attack the court’s decisions made in that case, and it is too late to do that. Adding the entire record of Burton I to the appellate record in this case would simply distract the parties from the materials that are actually at issue in this case. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that Burton’s Motion to Correct or Modify the Record on Appeal is DENIED. Entered November 3, 2020. BY THE COURT: /s/ ________________________________________ JAMES D. PETERSON District Judge