Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-7451_m64o.pdf
Page Number: 25

2 

YATES v. UNITED STATES 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

said “crocodile”? 

This  reading,  of  course,  has  its  shortcomings.  For  in-
stance,  this  is  an  imperfect  ejusdem  generis  case  because 
“record”  and  “document”  are  themselves  quite  general. 
And  there  is  a  risk  that  “tangible  object”  may  be  made 
superfluous—what  is  similar  to  a  “record”  or  “document”
but  yet  is  not  one?    An  e-mail,  however,  could  be  such  a 
thing.  See United States Sentencing Commission, Guide-
lines  Manual  §2J1.2  and  comment.  (Nov.  2003)  (reading
“records, documents, or tangible objects” to “includ[e]” what
is  found  on  “magnetic,  optical,  digital,  other  electronic,
or  other  storage  mediums  or  devices”).  An  e-mail,  after 
all, might not be a “document” if, as was “traditionally” so, 
a document was a “piece of paper with information on it,”
not  “information  stored  on  a  computer,  electronic  storage
device,  or  any  other  medium.”  Black’s  Law  Dictionary 
587–588  (10th  ed.  2014).  E-mails  might  also  not  be  “rec-
ords”  if  records  are  limited  to  “minutes”  or  other  formal 
writings  “designed  to  memorialize  [past]  events.”    Id.,  at 
1465.  A hard drive, however, is tangible and can contain 
files  that  are  precisely  akin  to  even  these  narrow  defini-
tions.  Both  “record”  and  “document”  can  be  read  more 
expansively,  but  adding  “tangible  object”  to  §1519  would 
ensure  beyond  question  that  electronic  files  are  included. 
To be sure, “tangible object” presumably can capture more
than just e-mails; Congress enacts “catchall[s]” for “known
unknowns.”  Republic of Iraq v. Beaty, 556 U. S. 848, 860 
(2009).  But  where  noscitur  a  sociis  and  ejusdem  generis
apply,  “known  unknowns”  should  be  similar  to  known
knowns,  i.e.,  here,  records  and  documents.    This  is  espe-
cially  true  because  reading  “tangible  object”  too  broadly 
could render “record” and “document” superfluous. 

Next,  consider  §1519’s  list  of  verbs:  “alters,  destroys,
mutilates,  conceals,  covers  up,  falsifies,  or  makes  a  false
entry  in.”  Although  many  of  those  verbs  could  apply  to
nouns  as  far-flung  as  salamanders,  satellites,  or  sand