So says ex-Ch J L. Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel to the trusty attorney for SGB Land Company, LLC, Docs Field of Dreams, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 8460-23, filed 9/23/26.
The end run in question is an attempt to insert into evidence a baseline documentation report by Dr K. and an appraisal by none other than the well-known Mr. W. Are they “historic documents,” admissible for their existence but not for the truth of anything either says, or are they admissible per FRE 803(6) as business records?
“Ordinarily, under our Rules, these types of documents would be offered into evidence as expert testimony reports and subject to the requirements of Rule 143(g). At trial, the testifying expert witness would identify the document as his own, and we would mark and receive it into evidence as the witness’s testimony. However, per its Pretrial Memorandum, petitioner does not intend to call either Dr. K or Mr. W to testify at trial. Consequently, petitioner does not contend that these documents are expert witness reports. Instead, recognizing that the documents constitute hearsay otherwise, petitioner argues that they are admissible for the truth of the matter asserted under Rule 803(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, commonly known as the business records exception to hearsay.” Order, at p. 2 (Footnotes omitted, but they say experts’ written reports go in as direct subject to cross, and if these aren’t, everyone agrees they’re hearsay.) (Names omitted).
Problem is, they’re not trustworthy, which caselaw says is essential.
“These documents are devoid of vital information on the circumstances in which and for which they were created and, most importantly, the impact of those circumstances on the methodologies and calculations used. This is information that can only be provided by the authors. For example, respondent correctly points out that the appraisal report contains a spreadsheet that vaguely claims to draw from ‘cost estimate[s] provided by developers,’ but provides no clarification whatsoever on who those developers were or how they came up with the costs. Additionally, we do not have sufficient information on how Dr. K or Mr. W were compensated for the production of these documents or their broader involvement with the transaction at issue, facts which necessarily color the reliability of the ultimate valuations used….” Order, at pp. 2-3. (Names omitted).
And here comes the safety valve.
“Rule 803(6)(E) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides the exact kind of safety valve that trial court judges need to prevent the use of the business records exception to circumvent the traditional expert testimony rules. Respondent has given us ample reason to rely on it here.” Order, at p. 3. (Citation omitted).
There was a T. C. Memo. today, Brenton E. Williams and Octavia P. Williams a.k.a. Octavia Pearl, T. C. Memo. 2026-91. It was Octavia’s story and the aftereffects of a hurricane, but it turns on documentation, of which petitioners have none. No novel concepts here.
