In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

Nos. 18-1866 & 18-1889

IN THE MATTER OF:

STEVEN ROBERT LISSE,

Debtor.

APPEALS OF:

WENDY ALISON NORA

____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 16-cv-617-wmc — William M. Conley, Judge.

____________________

SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 28, 2018

____________________

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge, in chambers. Appellant has 

submiYed a document styled “Request for Judicial Notice.” 

In my capacity as motions judge, I deny this and publish a 

brief explanation in the hope of forestalling other, similar 

applications, which recently have increased in frequency.

Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits a 

court to take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact that is 

“not subject to reasonable dispute” because it:
2 Nos. 18-1866 & 18-1889

(1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or

(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose 

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

The “Request” asks the court to take judicial notice of four 

documents. Two of them are orders entered by a state court 

in Wisconsin. They are public records and appropriate subjects of judicial notice. See Menominee Indian Tribe v. Thompson, 161 F.3d 449, 456 (7th Cir. 1998); Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(7).

The third is a power of aYorney filed in state court. The 

fact that a document is in a state court’s record does not 

make it an appropriate subject of notice, however, because 

its provenance may be disputed. Is it authentic? See Rules 

901 to 903. Are the four signatures real or forged? (The signature lines say that all four signers are officers of Bank of 

America; none is a party to this proceeding.) Is it the original, or perhaps a duplicate admissible under Rule 1003? Is 

the document even relevant? See Rule 402. If the power of 

aYorney had been submiYed in this proceeding it would not 

be subject to judicial notice. It does not get a privileged status because it was filed in a state suit.

The fourth document is a lawyer’s motion filed in the 

same state case. That document is not subject to judicial notice because it is not evidence of an adjudicative fact. A lawyer’s appellate brief in the Seventh Circuit is not evidence; 

neither is a lawyer’s motion in state court. If the document 

were being offered just to show that it had been filed, that

fact might be subject to judicial notice, but the “Request” 

does not suggest that appellant wants this court to take notice that a particular document was filed on a specific date in

some other tribunal.
Nos. 18-1866 & 18-1889 3

I said at the outset that I am denying the “Request,” and 

readers may wonder why I am not granting it with respect 

to two documents and denying it with respect to two. The 

reason is that the “Request” is unnecessary. The right place

to propose judicial notice, once a case is in a court of appeals, 

is in a brief.

When evidence is “not subject to reasonable dispute”,

there’s no need to multiply the paperwork by filing motions 

or “Requests.” Just refer to the evidence in the brief and explain there why it is relevant and subject to judicial notice. If 

the assertion is questionable, the opposing litigant can protest. “On timely request, a party is entitled to be heard on the 

propriety of taking judicial notice and the nature of the fact 

to be noticed.” Rule 201(e). That “timely request” and the 

“opportunity to be heard” both belong in the next brief. So if

an appellant proposes judicial notice, the appellee’s objection can be presented in its own brief. If it is an appellee who 

proposes judicial notice, the appellant’s reply brief provides 

the opportunity to be heard in opposition. There’s no need 

to engage in motions practice, require the aYention of additional appellate judges, and defer briefing.

The “Request” therefore is denied as unnecessary with 

respect to the two judicial orders and is denied as both unnecessary and not meritorious with respect to the other documents.