Trial Techniques and Tactics
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
I suggest the following simple ten ways to avoid malpractice in litigation: TRIAL TECHNIQUES AND TACTICS August 2014 [email protected] IN THIS ISSUE The ancient document exception to the hearsay rule can be a valuable tool for admitting documents into evidence when you lack (or decide not to use) a sponsoring witness to authenticate them. Don’t Forget About the “Ancient Documents” Hearsay Exception ABOUT THE AUTHOR David Schaefer is a partner in the Louisville, Kentucky office of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. He has an active product liability and general defense practice, with an emphasis on automotive, pharmaceutical, medical device and toxic tort cases. He is a 1986 graduate of the Indiana University Maurer School of Law and is admitted in state and federal courts in Kentucky and Indiana. He can be reached at [email protected]. ABOUT THE COMMITTEE The Trial Techniques and Tactics Committee promotes the development of trial skills and assists in the application of those skills to substantive areas of trial practice. Learn more about the Committee at www.iadclaw.org. To contribute a newsletter article, contact: Asim K. Desai Vice Chair of Publications Carlson Calladine & Peterson LLP (213) 613-1191 [email protected] The International Association of Defense Counsel serves a distinguished, invitation-only membership of corporate and insurance defense lawyers. The IADC dedicates itself to enhancing the development of skills, professionalism and camaraderie in the practice of law in order to serve and benefit the civil justice system, the legal profession, society and our members. w: www.iadclaw.org p: 312.368.1494 f: 312.368.1854 e: [email protected] ~ 2 ~ International Association of Defense Counsel TRIAL TECHNIQUES AND TACTICS NEWSLETTER August 2014 Trying any case is challenging these days, conditions” must be shown by the but cases involving stale or missing testimony of a qualified witness or by evidence present special obstacles. In the certification. Even if you can find a product liability context, difficulties custodian or other witness to provide the abound when the product at issue has been testimony or certification, he or she may be discontinued for some time and many of subjected to cross-examination (either at the key witnesses are gone. But let’s take trial or in deposition) that could diminish it a step further. Suppose the product the value of the document in the jury’s you’re defending ceased production eyes. decades ago – maybe as much as 50 or 60 or more years ago. This is not as far- What you really need is a hearsay fetched as it sounds, at least in latent exception that will allow the document to disease cases in states that have no statute be admitted without the need for testimony of repose. Under this scenario, none of the of a sponsoring witness. employees who were involved in the design, development or manufacture of the Don’t forget about the hearsay exception product are still with the company. In fact, for statements in ancient documents. In none of them are even alive. Miraculously, federal court it is FRE 803(16) and it does your client still has some contemporaneous not require an unavailable declarant. The documents that would support your rule provides a hearsay exception for: “A defenses at trial, but no one alive can statement in a document that is at least 20 authenticate them from personal years old and whose authenticity is knowledge. How do you get them into established.” This rule existed at common evidence? law and is now codified in one form or fashion in virtually every jurisdiction. It One potential avenue is the hearsay exists as a hearsay exception because of exception for “records of a regularly necessity as well as the inherent credibility conducted activity,” also known as the of statements made in documents written “business records” exception. In federal long ago. Trustworthiness is assumed court it is FRE 803(6). But Rule 803(6) has because the document was prepared long some fairly rigid requirements and you may before the present dispute, and since the have difficulty establishing the necessary rule applies only to written statements, the foundation. You might not have a witness danger of miscommunication is minimized. who can establish that the document was made at or near the time of the act or event The rule is particularly useful for two at issue by someone with knowledge, or reasons. First, a document is considered that the document was kept in the course of “ancient” after only 20 years.1 Second, the the company’s regularly conducted foundation requirements are more flexible activity, or that making the document was for ancient documents than business a regular practice of that activity. Subpart records, and you may be able to admit the (D) of the rule states that “all of these 1 One may wonder how documents only 20 years old actually enacted those rules are now ancient. The can be considered ancient. To most of us, author, who refuses to consider himself ancient, might developments such as the federal initial disclosures suggest that the exception be renamed “venerable enacted in 1993 still seem new, yet the documents that documents” or even “distinguished documents.” w: www.iadclaw.org p: 312.368.1494 f: 312.368.1854 e: [email protected] ~ 3 ~ International Association of Defense Counsel TRIAL TECHNIQUES AND TACTICS NEWSLETTER August 2014 document without any need for a each layer? The court in Hicks v. Charles sponsoring witness. Pfizer & Co., Inc., 466 F.Supp.2d 799 (E.D. Tex. 2005), answered this question in Ancient documents have their own the affirmative. However, the author of a authentication rule which overlaps the leading treatise disagrees, noting that FRE hearsay exception. FRE 901(b)(8), titled 803(16) simply says “statements in a “Evidence About Ancient Documents or document,” not “statements in a document Data Compilations,” requires the made on personal knowledge of the proponent to show that the document: document’s creator.” 4 Michael H. Graham, Handbook of Federal Evidence, (A) is in a condition that creates §803:16 (6th ed., 2009-2010 supp.). This no suspicion about its authenticity; is why a newspaper article more than 20 years old is admissible as an ancient (B) was in a place where, if document even if the article contains authentic, it would likely be; and information received from third parties who provided the information to the author (C) is at least 20 years old when of the article. Id. The court in Langbord v. offered. U.S. Dept. of the Treasury, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71779 (E.D. Pa. 2011), sided with The element of “suspiciousness” should Professor Graham, holding squarely that seldom be a problem, absent some “Rule 803(16) provides a broad hearsay indication that the document is a phony or exception that applies to any level of has been tampered with. The courts have hearsay within an ancient document.” Id. consistently held that “suspicion” does not at *57 (emphasis added). go to the content of the document – i.e., whether statements in the document are Thus, Rule 803(16) has the added benefit factually accurate or not – but simply of being (at least in many courts) an whether the document is what it purports to exception to Rule 805, which otherwise be. See U.S. v. Kalymon, 541 F.3d 624, requires a hearsay exception for each level 632-33 (6th Cir. 2008). If the document of hearsay in the document. Returning to was produced by the company during the comparison between the business discovery, that by itself should normally records exception and the ancient establish that it came from files or documents exception, the advantage once depositories over which the company has again goes to the ancient documents “possession, custody or control,” meaning exception. If a document is more than 20 it came from the place it would likely be. years old and there is sufficient evidence of See Dartez v. Fibreboard Corp., 765 F.2d its authenticity, you may be able to admit 456, 464 (5th Cir. 1985) (ancient document multiple lawyers of hearsay originating excluded where company correspondence from multiple declarants, all without not produced from company files). calling a sponsoring witness. But what if the document contains “hearsay A recent case illustrates the effective use of within hearsay?” Does that mean an Rule 803(16). In McGuire v. Lorillard ancient document can be admitted only if a Tobacco Co., 2014 Ky. App. LEXIS 25 separate hearsay exception is proven for w: www.iadclaw.org p: 312.368.1494 f: 312.368.1854 e: [email protected] ~ 4 ~ International Association of Defense Counsel TRIAL TECHNIQUES AND TACTICS NEWSLETTER August 2014 (Feb. 14, 2014),2 the Kentucky Court of Consider crafting your discovery responses Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision or disclosures to affirmatively state that the to admit into evidence numerous documents you are producing were documents from the 1950s, without a produced from a location where they would sponsoring witness. Id. at *71-78. The normally be located. Also consider a documents included trade journal articles, pretrial agreement, stipulation or quid pro articles from consumer publications, and quo arrangement under which both parties letters, memoranda and reports from admit ancient documents without a witness. company files. Plaintiff argued that It is likely that the judge will appreciate the testimony from a sponsoring witness was a streamlined approach of “publishing” necessary prerequisite to admitting the documents to the jury. This allows counsel documents into evidence. The court to argue what the documents mean during disagreed, holding that because they closing arguments rather than during qualified as ancient documents, and examination of a custodian who has no real because there were no authenticity knowledge of them anyway.