- 57 - notice, by the pleadings or otherwise, that the contents would be a subject of proof at the hear- ing, and that party does not produce the original at the hearing; * * * The advisory committee’s notes accompanying FRE 1004 explain the purpose of the exception to FRE 1002 found in FRE 1004(3), as follows: Basically, the rule requiring the production of the original as proof of contents has developed as a rule of preference: if failure to produce the original is satisfactorily explained, secondary evidence is admissible. The instant rule specifies the circum- stances under which production of the original is excused. It is petitioner’s position that respondent was in control of the “originals” of the documents, i.e, 25 checks and 1 money order,15 which certain of respondent’s employees reviewed in preparing the material entries that are the subject of respon- dent’s evidentiary objections and which listed the names of the payors during the years at issue of certain items that were deposited into petitioner’s accounts. According to petitioner, because respondent was in control of those “originals”, FRE 1004(3) permits the use of other evidence, i.e., certain entries in respondent’s workpapers, to prove the identity of those payors. We disagree. The “originals” of the documents that identify the payors during the years at issue of the items that relate to the mate- 15All but one of the items in question that were deposited into petitioner’s accounts and that relate to the material entries that are the subject of respondent’s evidentiary objec- tion were checks of some type, and one of those items was a money order.Page: Previous 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011