- 61 -
those duplicates would have been voluminous. On the record
before us, we find that petitioner has failed to establish that
the documents that certain of respondent’s employees reviewed in
preparing the material entries that are the subject of respon-
dent’s evidentiary objection are voluminous and could not have
been conveniently examined in court. On that record, we find
that FRE 1006 does not permit petitioner to use those entries to
show the payors of the checks and the money order in question.
Although petitioner does not advance any argument under FRE
1007, we believe that that rule is applicable in resolving
respondent’s evidentiary objection. FRE 1007 provides:
Contents of writings, recordings, or photographs
may be proved by the testimony or deposition of the
party against whom offered or by that party’s written
admission, without accounting for the nonproduction of
the original.
On the record before us, we find that the material entries that
are the subject of respondent’s evidentiary objection constitute
respondent’s written admission that those entries reflect the
information contained in the documents used to create such
entries.18 On that record, we also find that other entries in
respondent’s workpapers to which respondent objects under FRE
1002 constitute respondent’s written admission that those entries
reflect the information contained in the documents used to create
such entries.
18In this connection, we note that respondent does not
contend that the information contained in those entries is
inaccurate, nor do we question on the record before us the
accuracy of such information.
Page: Previous 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011