Opinion ID: 3058215
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Photographs of the Elevators

Text: Rutledge argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting photographs of elevators that Pentland said included the one in which he found Rutledge. At Pentland’s command, Sumen Ray–an NCL security supervisor who had assisted Rutledge to the infirmary–had taken photographs of the aft elevators at around 8:00 P.M. on the day of the fall. However, Ray was unavailable to testify during the trial. Pentland said that the photographs contained a fair and accurate representation of the elevator in which he had found Rutledge, but he could not confirm with certainty that the photographs were of the actual elevator because the elevators all looked alike. The requirement of authentication “is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). “A district court’s determination that an article of evidence has been properly authenticated will not be overturned unless there is no competent 4 Even if we deem it not waived, Rutledge still fails to show reversible error because she did not object to Dr. Salvador Ramirez’s testimony on this same topic and has not shown how Dr. Ramirez’s testimony would rise to the level of plain error, as is required where a party fails to object at the district court. See Brough v. Imperial Sterling Ltd., 297 F.3d 1172, 1179 (11th Cir. 2002) (“For evidence and argument to which no objection has been raised, this court reviews for plain error.”). 11 evidence in the record to support it.” United States v. Koziy, 728 F.2d 1314, 1321 (11th Cir. 1984). In this case, there is competent evidence to support the admission of the photographs. Pentland testified that they fairly and accurately depicted the elevator in which Rutledge had fallen. Pentland and Ray had both been in the elevator as they assisted Rutledge immediately after her fall, so they both knew which elevator was in question. And Pentland had personally inspected the area around the elevator, looking for any defects. At most, the photographs were cumulative of Pentland’s testimony. See Drew P. v. Clarke Cnty. Sch. Dist., 877 F.2d 927, 931-32 (11th Cir. 1989). Rutledge has failed to show any reversible error in the district court’s evidentiary decisions. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED.5 5 Rutledge’s motion for oral argument is DENIED. 12