- 13 -
801(d)(2)(B).10 We find that the records submitted with the
affidavits meet the substantive requirements of Fed. R. Evid.
803(6) and 902(11), and, with respect to some of those records,
are admissible and authenticated under other Rules of the Federal
Rules of Evidence.11
Petitioner also argues that the affidavits and the
underlying records should be excluded because those items were
not furnished to her in a time sufficient for her to challenge
fairly the adequacy of their foundation, and she was unduly
prejudiced as a result. Petitioner relies on the notice
requirement of Fed. R. Evid. 902(11) as a basis for the exclusion
of the affidavits and the records.
The notice requirement of Fed. R. Evid. 902(11) provides:
A party intending to offer a record into evidence under
this paragraph must provide written notice of that
intention to all adverse parties, and must make the
record and declaration available for inspection
10Under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(B), a statement is not
hearsay if the party-opponent has manifested an adoption or
belief in its truth.
11Petitioner claims that the affidavits are “inherently
untrustworthy and unreliable.” She cites to Ursuline’s change in
reporting her employment status from employee to independent
contractor and back to employee, the failure of the affiants to
produce all the checks purportedly issued to petitioner, the fact
that some of the checks are unendorsed, and the failure of the
affiants to produce copies of the Forms W-3 and 1096 used to
transmit the Forms W-2, 1099-MISC, and 1099-R. We cannot agree
that those circumstances indicate an inherent lack of
trustworthiness or reliability. This is especially true where,
as here, petitioner’s signature appears on many of the records
produced.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011