the time.[1] We generally limit our review on appeal to the record that was before the district court when it made its decision, see Boone v. Carlsbad Bancorp., Inc., 972 F.2d 1545, 1549 n.1 (10th Cir. 1992) ("[w]e will not review [evidence that] was not before the district court when the various rulings at issue were made"), and on that record we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in finding that Walgreen fully produced the access logs it had.
Second, Ms. Touhy contests the district court's determination that Document Request 14 and Interrogatory 10 were overly broad. The former demanded production of all manuals for any Walgreen's computer systems and programs that might house information about Ms. Touhy; the latter asked Walgreen to identify every person involved in the design and maintenance of those systems. On appeal, however, Ms. Touhy does not attempt to defend these requests as written. Rather, she now seeks only a (recent) computer manual and only one person with knowledge of the Walgreen computer system.
Unfortunately, both Ms. Touhy's actual request and her motion to compel before the district court did not make any mention of such limitations, and we cannot say the district court exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in denying
- ↑ Ms. Touhy first presented the Simko statement to the district court only in connection with a distinct and subsequent motion to continue the trial date. She never sought to have the testimony considered in connection with her motion to compel.
- 11 -
