Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Granting Summary Judgment or in the Alternative a Notice of Appeal”). It is well-setded that courts should construe the requirements of Rule 3(c) liberally where the document is the functional equivalent of a technically proper notice of appeal. See, e.g., Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248, 112 S.Ct. 678, 681-82, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992) ("Courts will liberally construe the requirements of Rule 3.”); Torres v. Oakland. Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 316-17, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 2408-09, 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988) (if a document is "technically at variance with the letter of [Rule 3], a court may nonetheless find that the litigant has complied with the rule if the litigant’s action is the functional equivalent of what the rule requires”); Ayala v. United States, 980 F.2d 1342, 1344 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). To the extent plaintiff’s combined document 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that settlement documents were admissible under both section 90408 and federal rule of evidence 408 because the documents were offered not to establish liability but to establish violation of consumer credit laws (B) holding that pursuant to the best evidence rule trial testimony relying on documents was inadmissible without submission of such documents or an explanation as to why the documents were unavailable (C) holding that because the record does not indicate that the extraneous documents or averments were excluded by the court  we must assume that they were considered (D) holding repeated claims by attorney to client that documents were forthcoming constituted misrepresentations in violation of rule 3284c when the documents were not actually ready (E) holding that documents technically at variance with rule 3c were nevertheless valid because they were the functional equivalent of a proper notice of appeal
Output (English): holding that settlement documents were admissible under both section 90408 and federal rule of evidence 408 because the documents were offered not to establish liability but to establish violation of consumer credit laws