RAMIREZ_Appendix_Writ_Certiorari_2_6_2017

Case: 15-11914 Date (130 Filed: of 2011) 12/04/2015 Page: 7 of 13
supplement. Cabalceta v. Standard Fruit Co., 883 F.2d 1553, 1555 (citing Ross v.
Kemp, 785 F.2d 1467, 1474-75 (11th Cir. 1986).
In this case, Appellant submitted information in the Appendix and Brief
which were not before the lower court. Specifically, the following information was
impermissibly included in the Appendix and Brief and should be stricken: 2
A. APPENDIX NO. 11, P. 120-25 (P.2)
Appellant references Dkt. 101-2 in his appendix, but no such docket entry
exists in the district court documents. Appellant also references Dkt. 32-2, p. 2-3 as
a document produced by him and bates numbered “CR F. 7 6/25 – 7 11/25.” Dkt.
32-2 is actually Plaintiff’s written responses to Defendant’s First Request for
Production and it only references “CR. F. 7 6/25 – 7 11/25” (Job Description of
Quality Inspector 1), which is not contained in the record. These Bausch & Lomb
job descriptions are not relevant and certainly do not establish any adjudicative
fact.
B. APPENDIX NOS. 13, P. 131-35 (P. 2); 28, P. 164-65 (P. 7), 83, P.
232 (P. 19), 84, P. 233 (P. 20)
Appellant references pages of the deposition transcript of Pamerly Thomas.
The deposition transcript of Pamerly Thomas is not in the record of the district
court, and Appellant should not be permitted to submit portions of a deposition that
clearly was available to him and could have been submitted to the district court, as
2 Bausch & Lomb will cite to the Appendix as follows: Appellant Appendix No.;
Eleventh Circuit Page ID No. (Page No. of Appellant’s Initial Brief).
A. 480