Opinion ID: 175980
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trustworthy Requirement

Text: The district court held that the remainder of the DOL Report, to the extent that it contains factual findings, is inadmissible as not trustworthy. [4] In Beech Aircraft, 488 U.S. at 167-68, 109 S.Ct. 439, the Supreme Court emphasized that, although a broad range of factual findings are potentially admissible under Rule 803(8)(C), the district court retains the discretion to exclude findings that are not trustworthy. See id. at 167, 109 S.Ct. 439 (Thus, a trial judge has the discretion, and indeed the obligation, to exclude an entire report or portions thereof ... that she determines to be untrustworthy.). Relevant factors include (1) the timeliness of the investigation; (2) the investigator's skill or experience; (3) whether a hearing was held; and (4) possible bias when reports are prepared with a view to possible litigation. Id. at 167 n. 11, 109 S.Ct. 439 (citation omitted). A party opposing the introduction of a public record bears the burden of coming forward with enough negative factors to persuade a court that a report should not be admitted. Johnson v. City of Pleasanton, 982 F.2d 350, 352 (9th Cir.1992). The district court acted within its discretion when it held that the DOL Report is not trustworthy. The report is incomplete because its exhibits are not attached. Its author is unidentified and unknown, making it impossible to assess the author's skill or experience. No hearing was held. The document does not appear even to be a final report, as distinct from an internal draft: It is recommended that this case be administratively closed as a partial agreement to pay. DOL Report at 8 (emphases added). The DOL did not issue the report or send it to either party at any time before this litigation; rather, it became available only because Plaintiff filed a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. Accordingly, welike the district courtdo not consider the disputed portion of the DOL Report as evidence in our analysis of the successorship issue.