- 15 -
Petitioner points out that respondent has previously filed
motions in this case requesting that facts be deemed established.
Petitioner objected to those requests in part because he
contended that the summaries did not comply with rules 803(6) and
1006 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. We did not grant
respondent’s requests. Petitioner concludes from our denial of
respondent’s motions that we agreed with his objections under
rules 803(6) and 1006 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
He is incorrect. We denied respondent’s requests that facts be
deemed established because the case was not ready for trial. We
have not previously decided whether respondent’s summaries
complied with rules 803(6) and 1006 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence.
Petitioner relies on Potamkin Cadillac Corp. v. B.R.I.
Coverage Corp., 38 F.3d 627, 632 (2d Cir. 1994), for the
proposition that respondent’s agents’ summaries are inadmissible
because they were prepared for litigation. The summary at issue
in Potamkin Cadillac Corp. was not admitted because it was
inaccurate, it required significant interpretation of data, and
it was “not simply a downloading of information previously
computerized in the regular course of business.” Id. at 633.
Potamkin Cadillac does not support petitioner’s position. We
conclude that the summaries are admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 1006.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011