Gloria J. Spurlock - Page 13

                                       - 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              

Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011