DOJ-OGR-00005721.jpg
738 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
4
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
738 KB
Summary
This document is a legal argument from a court filing, asserting that a specific document should be inadmissible as evidence. The core argument is that the document is not a reliable business record because it was created specifically in anticipation of litigation against Mr. Epstein, not in the ordinary course of business. The text cites several legal precedents to support this position and outlines the stringent requirements for a document to qualify under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein | Subject of litigation |
Mentioned as 'Mr. Epstein', the individual against whom litigation was anticipated, leading to the creation of the do...
|
| Palmer | Party in a legal case |
Party in the cited case 'Palmer v. Hoffman'.
|
| Hoffman | Party in a legal case |
Party in the cited case 'Palmer v. Hoffman'.
|
| Casoni | Party in a legal case |
Party in the cited case 'United States v. Casoni'.
|
| Missimer | Party in a legal case |
Party in the cited case 'Missimer v. Tiger Machine Co.'.
|
| Pelullo | Party in a legal case |
Party in the cited case 'United States v. Pelullo'.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Timberlake Const. Co. | Company |
A party in the cited case 'Timberlake Const. Co. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co.'.
|
| U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co. | Company |
A party in the cited case 'Timberlake Const. Co. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co.'.
|
| Tiger Machine Co. | Company |
A party in the cited case 'Missimer v. Tiger Machine Co.'.
|
| United States | Government agency |
A party in the cited cases 'United States v. Casoni' and 'United States v. Pelullo'.
|
Timeline (4 events)
1995-01-01
The case of Timberlake Const. Co. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co., which established that preparing a document in anticipation of litigation is not acting in the regular course of business.
2005-09-28
The case of Missimer v. Tiger Machine Co., cited for the requirements to establish the source of information in a business record.
E.D.Pa.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Abbreviation for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, mentioned in the citation...
|
Relationships (1)
The document states it is from 'lawyers representing plaintiffs against Epstein'.
Key Quotes (1)
"It is well-established that one who prepares a document in anticipation of litigation is not acting in the regular course of business."Source
— Timberlake Const. Co. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co.
(Cited as legal precedent to argue that a document prepared for litigation is not a business record.)
DOJ-OGR-00005721.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,168 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 390 Filed 10/29/21 Page 9 of 11
from lawyers representing plaintiffs against Epstein. This one-off document is far from a
reliable business record. There is simply no evidence to suggest that this document was created
in the course of any business. Rather, the exhibit was specifically “prepared” in anticipation of
litigation against Mr. Epstein and therefore is not a business record. Records prepared in
anticipation of litigation are not made in the ordinary course of business. See Palmer v.
Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109 (1943) (reports prepared for the purpose of litigation do not fall within
business records exception to hearsay rule because they are not kept in the course of regularly
conducted business); Timberlake Const. Co. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co., 71 F.3d 335, 342
(10th Cir.1995) (“It is well-established that one who prepares a document in anticipation of
litigation is not acting in the regular course of business.”); United States v. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893,
911, n.10 (3d Cir.1991).
reliable business record. There is simply no evidence to suggest that this document was created
in the course of any business. Rather, the exhibit was specifically “prepared” in anticipation of
litigation against Mr. Epstein and therefore is not a business record. Records prepared in
anticipation of litigation are not made in the ordinary course of business. See Palmer v.
Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109 (1943) (reports prepared for the purpose of litigation do not fall within
business records exception to hearsay rule because they are not kept in the course of regularly
conducted business); Timberlake Const. Co. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co., 71 F.3d 335, 342
(10th Cir.1995) (“It is well-established that one who prepares a document in anticipation of
litigation is not acting in the regular course of business.”); United States v. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893,
911, n.10 (3d Cir.1991).
Setting aside the fact that the document was prepared for a criminal purpose, to be
admissible as a business record the proponent of the document must establish the source of the
contested information, that is, (1) the author of the document had personal knowledge of the
matters reported; (2) the information he reported was transmitted by another person who had
personal knowledge, acting in the course of a regularly conducted activity; or (3) it was the
author’s regular practice to record information transmitted by persons who had personal
knowledge. See Missimer v. Tiger Machine Co., No. 04–3443, 2005 WL 3968133, at *2 (E.D.Pa.
Sept. 28, 2005). In addition, the proponent must establish the information was kept in the regular
course of the author’s business, and it was the author’s regular practice to prepare such reports.
See Fed. R. Evid. 803(6); United States v. Pelullo, 964 F.2d 193, 200 (3d Cir.1992) (for business
record exception to apply, proponent must establish “(1) the declarant in the records had personal
knowledge to make accurate statements; (2) the declarant recorded the statements
admissible as a business record the proponent of the document must establish the source of the
contested information, that is, (1) the author of the document had personal knowledge of the
matters reported; (2) the information he reported was transmitted by another person who had
personal knowledge, acting in the course of a regularly conducted activity; or (3) it was the
author’s regular practice to record information transmitted by persons who had personal
knowledge. See Missimer v. Tiger Machine Co., No. 04–3443, 2005 WL 3968133, at *2 (E.D.Pa.
Sept. 28, 2005). In addition, the proponent must establish the information was kept in the regular
course of the author’s business, and it was the author’s regular practice to prepare such reports.
See Fed. R. Evid. 803(6); United States v. Pelullo, 964 F.2d 193, 200 (3d Cir.1992) (for business
record exception to apply, proponent must establish “(1) the declarant in the records had personal
knowledge to make accurate statements; (2) the declarant recorded the statements
5
DOJ-OGR-00005721
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document