22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T449,introduction of the biological opinion was proper under the public records exception to the hearsay rule. Fed. R. Evid. 803(8). The district court relied on the biological opinion as one data point among others, not to establish United’s liability. The NMFS officials were asked to testify by the district court; they were not expert witnesses for Wishtoyo who had not been disclosed. See Fed. R. Evid. 614(a). 4. United does not challenge the district court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs to Wishtoyo except to request that this court vacate the fee award if it vacates the judgment. Because we affirm the judgment, we do not vacate the fee award. 5. We deny Wishtoyo’s motion for leave to file a surreply (Dkt. 41) and deny as moot Wishtoyo’s motion to strike United’s response to the proposed surreply (Dkt. 46). The district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law did 3 not rely upon the trial exhibits at issue; nor do we. So there is no need, for purposes of this appeal, to clarify whether they were admitted. The judgment is AFFIRMED. 424:T4a0,

introduction of the biological opinion was proper under the public records

exception to the hearsay rule. Fed. R. Evid. 803(8). The district court relied on the

biological opinion as one data point among others, not to establish United’s

liability. The NMFS officials were asked to testify by the district court; they were

not expert witnesses for Wishtoyo who had not been disclosed. See Fed. R. Evid.

614(a).

4. United does not challenge the district court’s award of attorney’s fees

and costs to Wishtoyo except to request that this court vacate the fee award if it

vacates the judgment. Because we affirm the judgment, we do not vacate the fee

award.

5. We deny Wishtoyo’s motion for leave to file a surreply (Dkt. 41) and

deny as moot Wishtoyo’s motion to strike United’s response to the proposed

surreply (Dkt. 46). The district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law did

3 not rely upon the trial exhibits at issue; nor do we. So there is no need, for purposes

of this appeal, to clarify whether they were admitted.

The judgment is AFFIRMED.