- 59 -
explained his failure to produce (1) the originals of the 25
checks and the 1 money order that relate to the material entries
that are the subject of respondent’s evidentiary objection or
(2) the duplicates (i.e., copies) of the microfiche of such
checks and money order, which microfiche petitioner’s banks
maintained. If petitioner had obtained such originals and
offered them at trial, they would have been admissible. See FRE
1002. If petitioner had obtained such duplicates and offered
them at trial, they would have been admissible to the same extent
as the originals. See FRE 1003. In either event, petitioner
would not have had to resort to secondary evidence consisting of
the material entries in respondent’s workpapers that are the
subject of respondent’s evidentiary objection in order to estab-
lish who the checks and the money order in question showed the
payors of such checks and money order to be. On the record
before us, we find that FRE 1004(3) does not permit petitioner to
use those entries to prove the identity of the payors of the
checks and the money order in question.
The second exception to FRE 1002 on which petitioner relies
is FRE 1006, which provides:
The contents of voluminous writings, recordings,
or photographs which cannot conveniently be examined in
court may be presented in the form of a chart, summary,
or calculation. The originals, or duplicates, shall be
made available for examination or copying, or both, by
other parties at a reasonable time and place. The
court may order that they are produced in court.
Petitioner claims that under FRE 1006 the material entries that
are the subject of respondent’s evidentiary objection are admis-
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011