Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc.

United States District Court, District of Columbia

March 9, 2018

LARRY KLAYMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge.

         Counter-Plaintiffs 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.[1] 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.

         In 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 fashion.

         Upon consideration of the parties' briefing, [2] 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.

         I. LEGAL STANDARD

         The 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).

         In at 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 excluded if

(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 activity;
(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 of trustworthiness.

Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) (“Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity”).

         Authentication 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.