Turner v. McDonough
- Andrew Krause
- 7:18-cv-04038
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Turner v. Wilkie, Magistrate Judge Smith ruled that counsel’s statements did not authenticate exhibits 1–34 for summary-judgment review.
The defendant’s use of exhibits 1 through 34 in support of its summary-judgment motion was affected. The pro se plaintiff received a copy of the order.
What happened
In Turner v. Wilkie, the Department of Veterans Affairs supported its summary-judgment motion with exhibits from an investigation and agency records. Defense counsel declared that the exhibits were true and correct copies of documents counsel had received.
The court explained that summary judgment evidence must be admissible at trial. Documents generally must be authenticated under the federal evidence rules, meaning the party offering them must provide a basis to show that they are what the party claims.
Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith found that counsel’s statements alone were insufficient to authenticate exhibits 1 through 34. The court stated that, if the defendant wanted the court to consider those exhibits, it should provide certifications from someone with knowledge or other evidence supporting their admissibility. The order also states that a copy was mailed to the pro se plaintiff.
The detailed version
- Turner v. McDonough · No. 7:18-cv-04038
- Andrew Krause
- Aug. 20, 2020
Background
The defendant submitted a declaration from counsel in support of its motion for summary judgment. Counsel stated that some exhibits were true and correct copies of documents from a June 14, 2014, report of investigation prepared in connection with the plaintiff’s equal-employment-opportunity complaint. Counsel also stated that other exhibits were true and correct copies of records the Department of Veterans Affairs had provided from its files concerning the plaintiff’s lawsuit.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that, on summary judgment, it may consider only evidence that would be admissible at trial. It explained that the documents identified in paragraphs 3 and 5 of counsel’s declaration—exhibits 1 through 34—needed to be authenticated under Federal Rules of Evidence 901 and 902. Counsel’s statements that the documents were true and correct copies of materials counsel had received did not themselves authenticate the documents.
Order and effect
The court did not decide the underlying case or enter a disposition of the summary-judgment motion in this order. Instead, it stated that, if the defendant wanted the court to consider exhibits 1 through 34, the defendant should provide certification from someone with knowledge or other evidence showing that the documents were admissible under the evidence rules. The order also states that a copy was mailed to the pro se plaintiff of record. The opinion identifies Lisa Margaret Smith as the United States Magistrate Judge; the supplied case information lists a different judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.