N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ASSUR ANC E C OM PANY OF AM E R IC A; e t a l., Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. NATIONAL FIRE & M AR INE INSUR ANC E C OM PANY, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-16715 D.C . No. 2:09-c v-01182-JC M
PAL
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Jam e s C . M aha

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 20, 2014 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , REINHAR D T , a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. This a ppe a l a rise s from Pla intiffs-Appe lla

nts’ (“ Zuric h” ) c la im

for e quita

ble
c ontribution aga inst Na

tiona l Fire & M a

rine Insura

nc e C om pa ny . Zuric h a

p pe a ls 

# FIL ED
D EC 01 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).se ve ra l of the distric t c o urt’ s e vide ntia ry rulings, a s we ll a s its de c ision to gra nt Nationa l Fire ’ s m otion for judgme nt on pa rtia l findings. 1 W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s de c isions a nd judgm e nt. 1. The distric t c ourt prope rly de n ie d Zuric h’ s m otion to a m e nd its
e xhibit list. Zuric

h fa ile d to de m onstra

te any m a n i fe st injustic e or good c a use for its la te re que st to a

m e nd the list. Se eFe d. R . C iv. P. 16(e ); D. Ne v. R . 16-3(d). The only re a s on Zuric h provide d for its la te re que st wa s ina dve rte n c e . Ac c ording to its own brie f, the e xhibits it wa nte d to a dd “ did not a lte r or im pa c t the dam a ge s sought, but sim

ply c orroborate d the sum s re que ste d.” 2. The distric t c ourt prope rly e xc lude d a

n e xhibit tha

t Zuric h fa ile d to produc e during disc ove ry . “ If a pa rty . . . fa ils to obey an orde r to provideor pe rm it disc ove ry ,” the distric t c ourt “ m ay issue furthe r just orde rs,” inc l uding

“ prohibiting the

disobe die nt pa

rty . . . from introduc i ng de s igna

te d m atte rs in
e vide nc e .” Fe d . R . C iv. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii). 3. The distric t c ourt prope rly de n ie d Zuric h’ s re que st for judic ia l notic e . Zuric h re que ste d notic e of e ntire c a se doc ke ts a nd liste d ove r a

hundre d doc um e nts. It did not provide the c ourt with fa c ts “ a c c urate l y and re a dily

1 The pa

rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s, so we will not re c ount the m he re . 2de te rm i ne d from sourc e s whose a c c ura c y

c annot re a sona

b ly be que stione d.” Fe d. R . Evid. 201(b)(2). It wa s im possible for the c ourt to gle an from Zuric h ’ s re que st the fa c ts Zuric h wa

nte d it to notic e . 4. The distric t c ourt im prope rly e xc lude d Zuric h’ s c om

pute riz e d pa ym e nt le dge rs ba se d on thebe st e vide nc e rule
. To e sta blish its c la i m

for
e quita ble c o ntribution, Zurich

ne e de d to prove that it pa id m ore tha n its fa ir sha

re of de fe nse an d se ttle m e nt c o s ts tha t both Zuric h a

nd Na tiona l Fire we re obliga

te d to c o ve r. Se e Fire man’s Fund Ins. C o. v . Md. C

as. C o ., 77 C a l. R

p tr. 2d 296, 303 (C a l. C t. App. 1998). At tria l , Zuric h introduc e d

the le dge rs a s proof of pa ym e nt. The be st e vide nc e rule re quire s only that “ [i] n proving the te rms of a writing,
w he rethete rms are

mate rial , the origina l writing m ust be produc e d.” Se ile r v . Luc asfilm, Ltd ., 808 F.2d 1316, 1319 (9th C ir. 1986) (e m pha s is a dde d) (quoting Mc C ormic k on Ev ide n c e § 230 a

t 704 (3d e d. 1984)). B e c a use Zuric h

wa s not proving thete rm s of the se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nts, thea gre e m e nts the m s e lve s we re not ne c e ssa

ry . Nor doe s the rule re quire tha t Zuric h prove pa

ym e nt by introduc ing
c anc e le d c he c ks, a s Nationa l Fire argue d
. Se eid. at 1318 (“ [T] he rule re quire s not,
a s its c om m on na m e im plie s, the be st e v ide nc e in e v e ry c a se but ra

the r the produc tion of a

n origina l doc um e nt inste a d of a c opy .” ).

35. The le dge rs we re a dm issiblea s busine ss re c ords. 2 He idi Foote ’ s

te stim ony la id suffic ie nt

founda tion for thea d

m ission of the le d ge rs. S

e e Fe d. R
. Evid. 803(6); Unite d State s v . C hilds , 5 F.3d 1328, 1334 (9th C ir. 1993) (“ The phra se ‘ othe r qua lifie d witne ss’ is broa d ly inte rpre te d to re quire only that the witne s s unde rsta

nd the re c ord-ke e ping sy ste m .” (quoting Unite d State s v . Ray , 930 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th C ir. 1991) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d)). 6. The distric t c ourt prope rly re q uire d founda t iona l witne sse s for the othe r e xhibits. Although the pa rtie s’ pre t ria l stipula

tion gove rne d the a dm ission of Zuric h ’ s e xhibits, Na

tiona l Fire e xpre ssly

“ re se rv[e d] he arsay

and founda

tion obje c tions for trial.” Zuric h the re fore ne e d e d witne ss te s tim o ny to la y the founda tion for the ir a dm issibility
. Se eOrr. v . Bank of Am ., 285 F.3d 764, 776 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ [A] uthe ntic i ty c onc e rns the ge nuine ne ss of a n ite m of e v ide nc e , not its
a dm issibility .” ); B la c k’ s La wDic tiona

ry 968 (9th e d. 2009) (de fining “ la y ing a founda tion” ). 7. At tria l, Zuric h

did not introduc e suffic ie nt e v ide nc e to prove the
e le m e nts of e q

uita ble c ontribution for the

26 c onstruc tion de fe c t c la im s at issue
. No e v ide nc e wa s a dm itte d to show tha t Zuric h a nd Na tiona l Fire ha d c om

m on

2 W e grant Zuric h’ s m otion to a u gm e nt the re c ord with thele dge rs. [ S e e C a 9 Dkt 12] 4insure ds, tha t the y c ove re d the sam e risk, tha t Zuric h pa id m ore tha

n its fa ir sha

re of losse s, or tha

t Nationa l Fire bre a c h e d its duty to de fe nd. Se e Fire man’s Fund , 77 C a l. R ptr. 2d a t 303. Thele dge rs did not e sta blish thee le m e nts of Zuric h ’ s
c a se . W e the re fore a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt be c a use its e rrone ous
e vide ntia ry ruling re sulte d in no pre

judic e . S e eC ity of Long Be ac h v . Standard Oil C o. , 46 F.3d 929, 936 (9th C i r. 1995) (“ R e v e rsa l will not be grante d unle ss pre j udic e is shown.”(c iting Glov e r v . BIC C orp. , 6 F.3d 1318, 1328 (9th C ir. 1993))). AFFIRM E D.

5