Entergy Texas, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Office of Public Utility Counsel, and State of Texas Agencies and Institutions of Higher Education, 03-14-00706-CV

Appellant Entergy Texas, Inc. filed briefing in an appeal that included over 1,500 pages of supporting documents, some as appendices and others attached without appendix labels.
State Agencies moved to strike Appendix A and Appendix B to Entergy’s reply brief and an unlabeled excerpt of Susan Goodfriend’s direct testimony because those materials are not part of the appellate/administrative record.
The contested materials include testimony from PUC Docket Nos. 34800, 37744, and 28840 — none of which are part of the record before this Court.
State Agencies argue the materials are improperly before the court because attaching documents to briefs does not formally include them in the appellate record and courts may not consider evidence outside the record.
State Agencies also contend Entergy’s citations are non-specific (pointing to entire testimony volumes), improperly shifting the burden to the court to search the record for supporting evidence.
Relief requested: strike Appendix A, Appendix B, the Goodfriend testimony excerpt, and portions of Entergy’s reply brief that rely on those materials (specified paragraphs/pages).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether documents appended to a brief but not included in the appellate/administrative record may be considered on appeal	Entergy cites appended testimony to support assertions in its reply brief	State Agencies: materials are not in the appellate record and thus cannot be considered; they should be stricken	Court should strike materials outside the record (State Agencies’ position)
Whether attaching documents as appendices to a brief effectively adds them to the record	Entergy treats appended materials as support without formal record inclusion	State Agencies: attachment does not constitute formal inclusion; appellate courts are limited to the record	Attaching exhibits to briefs does not substitute for inclusion in the appellate record
Whether appellants must provide specific citations to voluminous appended material relied upon	Entergy cites entire testimony volumes and points broadly to appendices	State Agencies: citations are insufficient; court should not be required to search voluminous materials for supporting proof	General references to voluminous material are inadequate; specific pinpoint citations required
Appropriate remedy for non-record materials and non-specific citations	Entergy opposes the motion to strike	State Agencies seek striking of the appendices and brief portions that rely on them	Motion to strike non-record materials and related brief portions is proper (per State Agencies’ argument)

Sabine Offshore Serv., Inc. v. City of Port Arthur, 595 S.W.2d 840 (Tex. 1979) (appellate courts may not consider affidavits or evidence not in the trial record)
Perry v. Kroger Stores, Store No. 119, 741 S.W.2d 533 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987) (attachments to briefs are not formal inclusion in the record)
In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. 2003) (appellate courts may only consider the record presented to them)
Cantu v. Horany, 195 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (documents attached to briefs cannot be considered if not in the record)
Carlisle v. Philip Morris, Inc., 805 S.W.2d 498 (Tex. App.—Austin 1991) (material outside the record improperly included in briefs may be stricken)
Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279 (Tex. 1994) (court is not required to search the record for supporting evidence)
Hall v. Douglas, 380 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (reiterating that appellants must direct appellate courts to specific evidence)
Aguilar v. Trujillo, 162 S.W.3d 839 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005) (general references to voluminous records are insufficient)