The decision to reopen a case for the introduction of further evidence after it has been closed is within the discretion of the trial court. "Its ruling upon the request to reopen will not be disturbed by the appellate court, unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion." Stavenjord v. Mont. St. Fund, 2003 MT 67, P 19, 314 Mont. 466, P 19, 67 P.3d 229, P 19; see also Pinnacle Gas Res., Inc. v. Diamond Cross Props., LLC, 2009 MT 12, ¶ 17, 349 Mont. 17, 22, 201 P.3d 160, 164.
We treat the District Court's decision denying the parties' request to supplement the record the same as any other discretionary post-trial court ruling. We review discretionary trial court rulings to determine whether a district court abused its discretion. Johnson v. Hamilton, 2003 MT 199, P9, 317 Mont. 24, P9, 75 P.3d 778, P9; see also Pub. Lands Access Ass'n v. Jones, 2004 MT 394, ¶ 17, 325 Mont. 236, 240, 104 P.3d 496, 500.