United States District Court, District of Columbia
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge.
Judicial Watch, Inc. (“Judicial Watch”) and
Thomas J. Fitton seek to introduce Exhibits 73-76,
79, 83, 86, and 87 through the deposition testimony
of Maureen Otis at trial on March 9, 2018, in support of
their counterclaims. Defs.' Suppl. Notice Regarding
Authenticity for Exs. to Be Used on Thursday/Friday, Mar.
8-9, 2018, ECF No. 515 (“Suppl. Notice”). The
Court has a standing order calling for daily briefing on
authenticity in order to resolve any such objections outside
of the jury's presence and thereby facilitate an
efficient trial. See Min. Order of Mar. 2, 2018.
Counter-Plaintiffs did not explain support for the
authenticity of these exhibits beyond claiming that
“[e]ach of these exhibits are [sic] identified and
authenticated by Ms. Otis' deposition testimony. Each
exhibit contains the exhibit sticker for the deposition to
assist in authentication.” Suppl. Notice at 1.
response to the filing of Counter-Plaintiffs'
Supplemental Notice, Counter-Defendant made only the blanket
objection that “[t]he proposed exhibits should be
excluded and notification is almost 12 hours late on the
morning of trial and violates the court's order.
Plaintiff lacks time to review as does the court.”
Pl.'s Notice of Objs. Regarding Authenticity of Proposed
Exs. for Mar. 8/9, 2018, ECF No. 518, at 2
(“Counter-Def.'s Resp.”). However,
Counter-Plaintiffs' Supplemental Notice was filed at 9:10
PM on March 7, 2018, not on the morning of trial.
Counter-Plaintiffs also had given notice to the Court and
Counter-Defendant on March 6, 2018, that they would be making
a supplemental filing to account for exhibits that they
proposed to introduce on Thursday, March 8, 2018. Lastly,
these exhibits were not actually introduced on March 8, 2018,
after all; Counter-Defendant has not taken the opportunity
over the ensuing more than 36 hours since the Supplemental
Notice was filed to provide any more definitive objections.
Accordingly, the Court shall deem Counter-Defendant as not
having made any specific objections and in turn shall address
the authenticity of the relevant exhibits in rather summary
consideration of the parties' briefing,  the relevant
legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court rules
as follows on the authenticity of Counter-Plaintiffs'
exhibits that they propose to introduce through the
deposition testimony of Ms. Otis.
threshold for proof of authenticity is low;
Counter-Plaintiffs need only “produce evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
proponent claims it is.” Fed.R.Evid. 901(a).
least one instance, the Court shall draw on the standard
established by the Federal Rules for the so-called business
records exception to the hearsay rule. “A record of an
act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis” is not
(A) the record was made at or near the time by-or from
information transmitted by-someone with knowledge;
(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly
conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation,
or calling, whether or not for profit;
(C) making the record was a regular practice of that
(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the
custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification
that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute
permitting certification; and
(E) the opponent does not show that the source of information
or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack
Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) (“Records of a Regularly Conducted
of at least one other exhibit relies in part on the testimony
of a witness with knowledge that “an item is what it is
claimed to be, ” Fed.R.Evid. 901(b)(1), or testimony
conveying “[a] nonexpert's opinion that handwriting
is genuine, based on a familiarity ...