conclude that Southern Natural’s candid admission that it dredged the pipeline in question is new evidence that was not available to Plaintiffs at the time of the summary judgment motion. Finally, Southern Natural will not be unfairly prejudiced by the district court’s consideration of Southern Natural’s own admissions and deposition testimony. This is not situation in which Southern Natural was unaware that the evidence at issue existed — the contents of both the deposition testimony and admissions were always known to Southern Natural and within its control. Further, had the district court utilized the case management order, this evidence would have been properly in front of the district court before it granted summary judgment in Southern Natural’s favor. See Luig, 817 F.3d at 907 (<HOLDING>). There are “two important judicial
holding that there was no prejudice when evidence complained of would have been admissible against defendant in separate trial holding that there was no prejudice where had the district court allowed the moving party the proper opportunity to respond the evidence would have been properly in front of the district court holding that unpleaded affirmative defense was properly considered by the district court where plaintiff had notice of the defense and an opportunity to respond holding that district courts dismissal of state law claims was proper where the district court had properly dismissed all of the federal questions that gave it original jurisdiction holding that the district court had discretion where plaintiff sought to amend a count that had been dismissed with prejudice