Opinion ID: 175980
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: conclusion

Text: Some portions of the DOL Report, including the first sentence in particular, state legal conclusions. The district court ruled that, because Rule 803(8)(C) applies to factual findings, legal conclusions are inadmissible. This seemingly straightforward holding uncovers an open question of law in this circuit: Does Rule 803(8)(C) cover an investigative report's legal conclusions as well as its factual findings ? In Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, 109 S.Ct. 439, 102 L.Ed.2d 445 (1988), the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the term factual findings in Rule 803(8)(C) encompassed only facts and not opinions and conclusions. The Court held that factually based conclusions or opinions are not on that account excluded from the scope of Rule 803(8)(C). Id. at 162, 109 S.Ct. 439. Particularly relevant here, the Court cabined its decision: We emphasize that the issue in this litigation is whether Rule 803(8)(C) recognizes any difference between statements of fact and opinion. There is no question here of any distinction between fact and law. We thus express no opinion on whether legal conclusions contained in an official report are admissible as findings of fact under Rule 803(8)(C). Id. at 170 n. 13, 109 S.Ct. 439. Only one circuit court has addressed that open question at any length. In Hines v. Brandon Steel Decks, Inc., 886 F.2d 299, 302 (11th Cir.1989), the Eleventh Circuit held that Rule 803(8)(C) does not provide for the admissibility of the legal conclusions contained within an otherwise admissible public report. Legal conclusions are inadmissible because the jury would have no way of knowing whether the preparer of the report was cognizant of the requirements underlying the legal conclusion and, if not, whether the preparer might have a higher or lower standard than the law requires. Id. at 303. That court caution[ed], however, that the amorphous line between `factual' and `legal' conclusions may obscure a practical analysis under this rubric. Id. The Fourth Circuit has agreed, albeit without analysis. See Zeus Enters., Inc. v. Alphin Aircraft, Inc., 190 F.3d 238, 243 (4th Cir.1999) (The NTSB order involved no factual determinations and was strictly a legal ruling. As such, the NTSB order was not admissible under Rule 803(8)(C).). We agree with the Eleventh and Fourth Circuits. Pure legal conclusions are not admissible as factual findings. In the context of a summary judgment motion, a conclusion of law by a third-party investigator does not, by itself, create a genuine issue of material fact for the obvious reason that a legal conclusion is not a factual statement and for the reasons explained by the Eleventh Circuit. Accordingly, the district court properly held that the DOL Report's legal conclusion that Dollar Tree is a successor in interest under the FMLA does not create a genuine issue of material fact.