## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 2234 G ARY M IS TER, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. N ORTHEAS T I LLINO IS C O M M UTE R R AI LROAD C ORPO RA T I ON, doi ng busi ness as M et ra M et ro p olit an R ail, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:06- cv-00407

— Geraldine Soat B rown, Magistrate Judg e. A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 11, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 9, 2009

Befo re B AUER, R IPPLE an d W OO D , C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Afte r a l ong w or k day, GaryM i ste r wa l k e d t o wa r d h i s c a r, s l i p p e d , fe l l, a n d s u e d h i s e mplo yer, the N or theas t I l l i no i s Co m m uterRai l ro ad Corpor ati on ( M etr a) , under the Fe deralEm plo yers L iabi l i ty A ct. 45 U .S.C . § 51 et s eq . A t the hos pit al, M i ste r coul d not disc uss the i nci dent w i th M etr a SafetyOffi cerKir k Krone r b ec au se h e w as in p ain
. B u t K r on er d isc u ss ed th e fa ll2 N o. 08

- 2234 wi thM i st er ’ s su per vi so r s, wh o w er e pr es en t atthe hospi talbut did notwitnes s the f al l
. Kronerhan d w ro te a r epo r t o fhi s fi ndi ng s, whi chi nc l ude d a s ta te m en t that anothe r em plo yee had f al l en the pre vio u s week at the s a me s po t
. T he di s t r i c tc o ur tf o un d the r e po r ti na dm iss ible ; i t d et er m in e d t h at th e re p or t w as inh er en tly unrel i abl e s i nce K ro n erhad no per sonalkno w l edge o f th e e v e n t s d e s c r ib e d
. O n a p p e a l, Mi s t e r a r g u e s th a tt he re portsho uld have bee n adm i tte d as a n adm i ssi on bya partyo pp onent pu rs uant to Fe deralRule o fEvi dence 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( D )
. F o r th e f o l l o win gr e a s o n s , w e a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND O n Jan u ar y 2 5, 2 0 0 5 , M ist er arr ive d atw or k, p ar ke d in an u n p av ed lot (w h er e p ar kin g w as p ro h i b ite d ) ap p ro x im ately 15 feet from the trai n o n w hich he w ou ld w ork th at d ay, th en w orked his “ru n” ( w hich i s a full -da y shift), and returned to the sta ti on. On the s hor t wal k back to h is c ar , M ist er slip p ed on sn ow or ic e a n d fell. M i ste r’s w ife w as at the s tat i on a nd to ok hi m to the h ospi tal
. Pursuant to M etr a pol i cy, M i ste r i nfo rm ed hi s o n-duty supervis or, Bob Tague, abo ut hi s a cci dent. Ta g ue r epo r te d the f al l t o di st r i cts upe r i nt en den t H er seyS tepto e. Once i nfo rm ed, Tague and Steptoe m ade thei r w ay to the ho spita l t o m ake sur e M i ste r w as safe a nd to i nvest i gat e the ev ent. M etra’s Safe t y Offi cer, K roner, j oined the oth er M etra o ffi ce r s atthe ho spi ta l
. Kr o ne r ’ s j o b r equi r ed th athe en su re th at all sa fet y ru les w er e c om p lie d w ith an d , inN o. 08

- 2234 3

ca se o fa n e m pl o y ee i nj ur y, t o i nv es ti g at e th e ac ci den t an d su m m ar i ze hi s fi nd i ngs in a r epor t. A t the hos pit al, K ro ner w as n ot abl e t o disc uss the acc i dent w i th M i ste r du e t o M i ste r’ s pai n. I nstea d, K ron er si m plydi scusse d th e e ve n t w i t h T a g u e a n d Ste p to e a n d rec or d ed h is fi nd ing on a single she et of loose-l eaf pa p er. A ccor ding to the r epor t, “[ M etra] h ad a si m i l ar in c id en t le ss th en [sic ] a w ee k e ar lier in th e s am e s p ot .” This sta tem ent r efer re d to a sli p and fa l l r epor ted by another M etr a e m plo yee , W al l y W ym an. A pp ar entl y, W ym an park ed i n the sam e u n p aved lo t a nd al so slip p ed on ice
. N o on e kn ew th e d et ails of W ym an ’ s fa ll. M o r e i m portantl y, de spi te s ta tingtha t i t was i n the sam e sp ot, K roner d id n ot know w he r e e ith er M ister’s orW ym an’ s f al l had tak en pl ace. A t t ri al, M i ste r att em pted to i ntro du ce the r epor t a s a partyadm i ssi on under F ed. R. Evi d. 801 ( d)( 2) ( D) a nd have the M etr a o ffice rs te sti fy about the r epor t’ s co ntents

— m ainl y, W y m an ’ s ac ci den t. The di st r i ctc o ur t f o und the r epo r t i na dm i ss ibl e an d di d no t al l o w te st i m o ny re ga rd in g it; sh e fo u n d th e r e p or t in h er en tly u n re liab le an d s ta te d, “ [ t] he a g en t ha s to hav e a b as i s f o r making the sta tem ent. [ K ro ner] has no perso nal knowle dge o n w hi ch to m ake thatst ate m ent, and [M i ste r has no t] es tabl i shed a foundati on f ori t. ” Ulti m ate l y, the cour t ba rr ed the r epor t a nd i ts acco m panyi ng te sti m ony. The di str i ct cour t furtherdeni ed the re portunder F ed. R. Evi d. 403. I t st at ed th at “e ve n unde r Rul e 40 3, th e do cument shoul d not be adm i tte d. [ K ro ner’ s] te sti m ony i s contr ar y. I t und er m i nes hi s abi l i ty to draw the concl usi on t hat4 N o. 08

- 2234 i s s tat ed i n that l ett erthat[ M etr a] had an ac ci dent at th e . . . s ame s po t
. . . b ec au se [ Kro ne r ] t es ti fi ed th athe d id n ’t k n ow w h er e G ar y M ist er fell.” The j ur y r etur ne d a v er di cti n favor o fM et r a an d M i s t e r t i mel y a pp e a l e d.

I I . DI S C US S I ON M ist er a rg u es th at th e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed w h en it r e fus e d to a dmi tKr o ne r ’ s r e po r tu nd e r F e d. R
. Ev i d. 80 1( d) ( 2) ( D) , a nd a l l o w M et r a o ffi ce r s to t es ti fy abo ut sai d repor t. W e r evi ew the cour t’ s e vi denti ar y r ulings for an ab u se of d isc re tio n . Ali o t t a v. Nat i onal Rai l r oad Pass e nge rCorp. , 31 5 F.3d 75 6, 75 9 (7th C ir. 20 03 ). U n d er th is st an d ar d , “w e w ill n o t fin d err or u n les s t h e c ou rt ’s d ec isi on i s ba sed o n an e rr oneo us co ncl usi on o f l aw o r the r eco rd co ntain s no evi dence on w hi ch the cour t r ati onal l y c oul d have ba sed i ts decisio n o r the s up posed f acts w hi ch the cour t found are cl ear l y e rr oneo us. ” Yo un g v. Jam es Gree n Mgm t. , Inc. , 327 F.3d 616 , 621 (7th C ir. 2003). K ro n er ’s re p or t, an d its refe re n c e t o W ym an ’s fa ll, a r e c e r t a i n l y h e a r s a y i n th e u s u a l s e n s e o fth a tt e r m. K ro ner w ro te the s tat em ent based o n i nfo rm ati on pro vide d to him by Ta gu e, w ho h ad l earn ed i t from M ister, w ho was pres um abl y t ol d by W ym an that h e h ad f al l en a week ear l i er . But never thel ess , “ R u le 801( d)( 2) , o n i ts f ace, m er el y defi nes as no n-hea rs ay cer tai n hear say l i ke evi dence. ” A li otta , 315 F.3d at76 1. U n d er R u le 80 1( d) ( 2) ( D) , “ [ a] s ta te m en t i s no t he ar sa y i f
. . . [ t] he stat ementi s o ffer ed ag ains t a par tya nd i s . . . a s ta te m en tN o. 08

- 2234 5 by the par ty’ s a gent orse rv ant co ncer ni ng a m att er wi thin the sco pe o fthe a g e nc y o r e mpl o y men t, ma de du ring the exi stence o fthe re l ati onshi p . . . . ” U nited St at e s v. Swan , 48 6 F
. 3d 26 0, 26 4- 65 ( 7th Ci r . 20 07) (ci ti ng Fed. R . Evi d. 801( d))
. Thi s Rul e “ si m plyr equi re s that the s tat em ent b e m ad e b y a n i nd i vi du alwh o i s a n age nt, th atthe s ta te m en t be made dur i ngthe p eri o d o fthe age ncy, and that the m att erbe w i thi n the subj ec t m att er of t h e a ge n c y.” Young, 32 7 F
. 3d at 622. The di st r i ctco ur t r efus ed t o adm i t thi s s ta te m en t o n the gr ound that i t was i nherent l y unre l i ab le si nce i t l acke d f oundati on a nd was base d on var i ous l eve l s ofhear say . M et ra arg u es th at th e re q u ire m en t o f first -h an d kn ow led ge is im b e d d e d w ith in th e R u le a n d K ro n er sim p ly had no fi r s t
- ha nd kno wl e dg e o fthe ma t t e r s ab o utwhi ch he w rote. N either K roner, Tagu e, nor Step toe w ere pr ese ntdur i ngM i st er ’ s o r W y m an ’ s f al l o r kne w the loc at ion of W ym an ’s fa ll. M ist er d id n otd isc u ss h is f al l with the r epor t’ s a uth or , K ro ner, and K ro ner did not know w here M i ste r had fa l l en wh en he w ro te the s tat em en t. Kr one r’ s i nv es ti g at i o n o nl y i nc l ude d whatTa g ue an d S teptoe m ayha ve b ee n t o l d abo utthe pr ev i o us i nci d en t. Thus, M etr a cl ai m s that the docum ent l acks th e pr o perf o unda ti o n t o b e admi tt ed as a par tya dm i ss i o n. M e t r a ’ s p o s i t i o n i s thi s : a di s t r i c tc o ur t m ust e xc l ud e sta tem en ts m ade i n a c or pora te offi cer ’ s r epor t, wh o w as hi r ed to i nv es ti g at e i nc i den ts by di sc us singthe e ve nt w i th o therco rpor ate em p loy ees and to sum m ar i ze thei r accounts o fthe eve nt i n a r epor t, i fthe offi cer l acke d fi rs t- hand kno w l edge o fthe i nci dent.6 N o. 08

- 2234 W e di sa g r ee wi ththa t po sit i o n. M et r a woul d ha ve us e x c l u d e a g r e a tc h u n ko fc o r p o r a t e t e s t i mo n y fr o m e mplo yee s be cause they re l y o n i nfo rm ati on that o ther peopl e hav e t ol d them i n the cour se ofthe j ob. Br i e fl y, Kr o ne r ’ s r e po r t mee t s a l l o f the Ru l e ’ s c r i t e ri a t o be classifi ed as non -h e a r s ay. U nd ispu tably, th e rep ort that w as offer ed by M i ste r aga i nst hi s em plo ye r M etr a, w as p rep ared i n th e usu al course of bus ine s s , b y M etra’s Safety O fficer ( th e agen t) inv e s tigating M ister’s w ork ac ci den t. Rul e 80 1(d )( 2) ( D) do es no t r equi r e an y th i ng el se a l o ngthe l i ne s o fi nt erna l v er i fi ca ti o n o fthe re p or t’s co n te n ts
. SeeKo szola v. Bd
. of Educ. , 385 F. 3d 1104, 1110 ( 7th Cir
. 20 04) ( sta tem ent a dm i ssibl e under 801( d)( 2) ( D) e ven though di str i ct c ourtr efused to co ns i de r i tb e c a us e i tl a c k e d p r o pe r e v i de nt i a r y f oundation). A ccord ingly, w e beli eve th at th e d istri ct cou rt er re d i n thi s fi nd i ng and thatKroner ’ s r epor t doe s fal l w ithin th e con fi ne s of R ule 801(d )( 2)(D). Bu t thi s doe s no t autom ati cal l y r equi re thatthe re portbe adm i tte d i nto evi dence. A fterst ate m ents ar e cl ass i fi ed as non - hear sayunder Rul e 8 01( d)( 2) ( D), “[ t] he questi on re m ai ns wh etherther e a re o thero bj ecti ons. ” A li otta , 31 5 F. 3d at 76 3. M i ste r m ai ntai ns that, as a Rule 801( d)( 2) adm i ssi on, the tes ti m ony i s adm i ssibl e re gar dle ss ofo ther c on sid er ati ons. A t o ra l ar gum ent, M i ste r ar gued that an y th i ng as se r te d by an i nv es ti g at i ve o ffi ci al, i f f o und in a re p or t c re at ed w ith in t h e s c op e o f h is e m p loy m en t, ev en if ex tr em ely rid icu lou s like “t h e c ow j u m p ed ov er the m oo n,” shoul d com e into evid en c e. A l though there ar e r ule s th at ca l l f o r th e g en er o us tr ea tment o fpa r ty
- o ppo ne ntN o. 08

- 2234 7 adm i ssi ons ( the 1972 advi sor y c om m i tte e no tes to Rule 80 1 su ggesttha t admi ss i o ns a r e so m et i m es fr ee fr o m the p er so n al k n ow l e d g e re q u ire m en t o f R u le 6 02 ), th ey “s till do n o ts t a nd f o r the p r o po s i t i o n tha tR ul e 8 0 1( d)( 2) tr um ps a ll oth er Feder al Rules of Ev id ence. ” Id
. (em p ha sis in origi na l)
. Fed
. R. Evid
. 403 requ ires tha t a d is trict court de term i ne wh etherthe prej ud i ci aleffect ofadm i tting such evi dence outw ei ghs i ts proba ti ve value and ther eby re n d er s itina d m iss ible
. A li otta , 3 1 5 F
. 3 d a t7 6 3
. W ha t we have here i s a non-h ear sayr epor t that i s der i ved fro m m ult i ple l eve l s o fhear say . A l though the r epor t s tat ed th ata s i m i l arf al l o cc ur r ed i n the “ same s po t, ” no o ne knew wha ts po t
. No o ne kne w e xa c t l y wh e r e Wym an ha d f a l l e n a nd the re i s ab s o l ut e l y n o b a s i s t o c o nc l ud e th atM i st ers l i pped an d fel l i n the s ame l o ca ti o n a s W y m an . Altho ug h i t w ou ld ha ve b ee n pr o pert o a dm i t th e re p or t a n d allow M et ra to ex p os e t h e s t a t e m en t’s u n re liabi l ity on cro ss- exam i nati on, i t was noti m properto fin d th e re p or t u n re liab le b as ed on th e m u ltip le lev els o fhe ar sa y a nd l ac ko fpr ec i se f ac tu als ta te m en ts
. W e fi nd that th e dist ri ct c ourtdi d not abuse i ts disc re ti on wh en it barr ed K ro ner’ s r epor t, and the acco m panyi ng te st im ony about i ts conte nts.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON The di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed wh eni t di d no t cl as si fy the re portas an a dm i ssi on bya partyo p p on en t un der Rule 801( d)( 2) ( D); however, the cour t di d not ab u se i ts8 N o. 08

- 2234 d isc re tio n w h en it fou n d th e re c or d ina d m is s i b le und erRule 40 3, and ther ef or e, we A FFIRM .

7- 9- 09