Opinion ID: 3015191
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The HPL Create Sheet

Text: Supp. 316, 319 (E.D. Pa. 1994); City of Harrisburg, 596 F. Supp. at 960-61. We are persuaded that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would not extend the Brakeman rule to claims-made policies because such an extension of the notice period would defy the very purpose of a claims-made policy—that the claim be reported during the policy period. See Continisio, 17 F.3d at 69 (“[A]n extension of the notice period in a ‘claims made’ policy constitutes an unbargained-for expansion of coverage, gratis, resulting in the insurance company’s exposure to a risk substantially broader than that expressly insured against in the policy.” (quoting Zuckerman v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 495 A.2d 395, 406 (Pa. 1985)). 15 The “HPL Create Sheet” consists of a printed form, which has been filled out with handwritten notations, providing information such as the name of the insured, the claimant, the policy number, and a space for description of the loss. The form is dated August 20, 2003, and specifically refers to the Lieb claim. The key portion of the form, for our purposes, is a entry which originally read “Date of Loss.” That phrase has been crossed out and “Date of RPT 12-31-01” is handwritten. The only evidence in the record regarding the nature and purpose of this document is the deposition testimony of Denzil R. White, an employee of a Lexington affiliate, AIG Technical Services (“AIGTS”), who had been responsible for assembling documents produced in response to West Penn’s discovery requests. White testified as follows: Q. What is an “HPL Create Sheet”? A. It’s used by the department to get information about the claim and policy information to create the claim on our system. Q. This is the cover sheet that you use to give to your data processing people so that they would open files in Toolkit and LMS; isn’t that right? .... A. Yes. .... Q. Do you complete these? A. No. Q. These are completed by the director, to your knowledge? A. To my knowledge, yes. Q. Can you identify this handwriting as the handwriting of Mr. Ruane? A: I am not sure. .... Q. Do you have any reason to believe that “RPT” does not signify report? .... A. I don’t know what it means. Q. Have you made any inquiry of anybody to 16 determine who wrote that and what it means? A. No. .... Q. Do you see the date at the top? A. Yes. Q. That is August 23, 2003, is it not? A. Yes. Q. Do you have any reason to believe that that is anything other than the date that this document was drafted and placed in your files? A. I am not sure. As a threshold matter, Lexington claims that the HPL Create Sheet is inadmissible either because it cannot be properly authenticated or because it is hearsay and not within any exception to the hearsay rule. We find, however, that the document is likely to be admissible. Nevertheless, the probative value of this document is insufficient to withstand summary judgment.
While the point is extremely close, we conclude that the HPL Create Sheet meets the minimal requirements for authentication under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a). Rule 901(a) states: “The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” We have repeatedly noted that “[t]he burden of proof for authentication is slight.” McQueeny v. Wilmington Trust Co., 779 F.2d 916, 928 (3d Cir. 1985); see also Link v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, 788 F.2d 918, 927 (3d Cir. 1986). In Link, we elaborated on the standard for authentication of documents: [T]he showing of authenticity is not on a par with more technical evidentiary rules, such as hearsay exceptions, governing admissibility. Rather, there need be only a prima facie showing, to the court, of authenticity, not a full argument on 17 admissibility. Once a prima facie case is made, the evidence goes to the jury and it is the jury who will ultimately determine the authenticity of the evidence, not the court. The only requirement is that there has been substantial evidence from which they could infer that the document was authentic. 788 F.2d at 928.6 Applying this standard, in United States v. McGlory, 968 F.2d 309 (3d Cir. 1992), we held that handwritten notes met Rule 901’s standard for authentication even though a handwriting expert could not definitely determine that the notes were in the defendant’s writing, finding that the circumstantial evidence linking the notes to the defendant was sufficient. For example, we relied on the fact that the notes were found in the trash outside the defendant’s residence, some of the notes were on paper from a notebook found in defendant’s home, and the contents of the notes were consistent with defendant’s use of initials and other code words. Id. at 330-31. When we combine White’s testimony with the circumstantial evidence of the authenticity of the document, in particular the fact that it was produced by Lexington pursuant to discovery requests, we believe that there is a sufficient foundation for a jury to determine that this document is what it is purported to be: a Lexington HPL Create Sheet. See McQueeney, 779 F.2d at 929 (“[T]he fact that the copies were produced by the plaintiff in answer to an explicit discovery request for his Sea Service Records, while not dispositive on the issue of authentication, is surely probative.”); In re Japanese Elec. Prods. Antitrust Litig., 723 F.2d 238, 286 (3d Cir. 1983), rev’d on other grounds, 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (“[The exhibits] have the appearance, content, and substance typical of [board] minutes. They were produced by the 6 Our Court has not precluded reliance on unauthenticated documents to oppose a motion for summary judgment, so long as they are ultimately “reduc[ible] to admissible evidence.” Williams v. Borough of West Chester, 891 F.2d 458, 466 n.12 (3d Cir. 1989) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986)). 18 defendants pursuant to a discovery order in this proceeding. They come from a source where such minutes are likely to be kept . . . . No more evidence was needed to establish a prima facie case of authenticity than the record contains.”) (citations omitted); see also Burgess v. Premier Corp., 727 F.2d 826, 835-36 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that evidence found in defendant’s warehouse was adequately authenticated simply by its being found there). While it is troubling to us that the author of the handwritten notations remains unknown, and that White could not be sure of correct date, there does not appear to be any genuine dispute that the HPL Create Sheet was filled out by a Lexington employee for the purpose for which this sheet is typically used, i.e., to search for data on a claim. The real controversy between the parties on this issue relates to what the document purports to be (or more particularly, what it tends to prove). In Lexington’s submission, the document is “evidence only of the HPL Create Sheet itself, not at all proof that West Penn reported the Lieb claim to Lexington during the policy period.” But for authentication purposes, Rule 901(a) does not require the document to be probative of a particular fact, but requires only that there be sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the document “is what its proponent claims it to be.” See In re Japanese Elec. Prods. Antitrust Litig., 723 F.2d at 285 (focusing “on the limited question of genuineness” to establish authenticity under Rule 901). Because we agree that the HPL Create Sheet is what it purports to be—a Lexington internal document used to retrieve information regarding claims—we conclude that the authentication requirement is satisfied.
Lexington submits that, even if the document can be authenticated, it is hearsay and does not fall into any exception to the hearsay rule under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). We have doubts, however, that the declaration in question—the handwritten words “Date of RPT: 12/31/01”—constitutes a “statement” under the 19 hearsay rule. A “statement” is defined as an “oral or written assertion.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(a)(1). The Advisory Committee Notes clarify that “nothing is an assertion unless intended to be one.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(a) advisory committee’s note. White stated that the purpose of the HPL Create Sheet is to request information about a claim from the data processing department. In this sense, the information on the HPL Create Sheet is more in the nature of an inquiry than an assertion. Courts have held that questions and inquiries are generally not hearsay because the declarant does not have the requisite assertive intent, even if the question “convey[s] an implicit message” or provides information about the declarant’s assumptions or beliefs. Long v. Mayfield, 905 F.2d 1572, 1579-80 (D.C. Cir. 1990); see also United States v. Lewis, 902 F.2d 1176, 1179 (5th Cir. 1990) (“While ‘assertion’ is not defined in the rule, the term has the connotation of a positive declaration. The questions asked by the unknown caller, like most questions and inquiries, are not hearsay because they do not, and were not intended to, assert anything.” (citation omitted)); see also 5 Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 801.11[2] (2d ed. 2002). For example, in Long, the D.C. Circuit held that an unidentified caller’s inquiry into whether “Keith ‘still had any stuff’” was not hearsay despite the clear inference from this statement that Keith in fact had “stuff” or that, more generally, Keith was involved in drug distribution. 905 F.3d at 1579-80. In United States v. Jackson, 88 F.3d 845 (10th Cir. 1996), the panel determined that the question “Is this Kenny?” was not hearsay under Rule 801(a)(1) and (c). The Court held that, even though “it might be possible to imply that the declarant believed [Kenny] was in possession of the pager and therefore he was the person responding . . . to the declarant’s message . . . [t]he mere fact . . . that the declarant conveyed a message with her question does not make the question hearsay.” Id. at 848. In this case, White’s deposition suggests that the HPL Create Sheet is an inquiry into whether the data processing department can find information on a claim based on certain criteria. Notwithstanding the fact that this inquiry could reveal 20 assumptions the declarant might have made about the Lieb claim—in particular that the date of report was December 31, 2001—we can infer from the HPL Create Sheet’s purpose that the declarant was not making an assertion, but rather was asking a question, which does not constitute hearsay under Rule 801(a)(1) and (c).7 Therefore, because we find that the HPL Create Sheet ultimately could be rendered admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence, it can be used to oppose Lexington’s summary judgment motion.8 Cf. note 5, supra.
7 Even if this document constituted an assertion, it would likely be admissible as an admission by a party opponent under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D). Rule 801(d)(2)(D) provides: “A statement is not hearsay if . . . [t]he statement is offered against a party and is . . . a statement by the party’s agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship.” It is not disputed that a Lexington employee was responsible for filling out the HPL Create Sheet. As such, the writing is an admission by a party-opponent within the meaning of Rule 801(d)(2)(D), and thus would fall outside the proscription against hearsay. Although we do not know how this employee gathered the information reflected on the HPL Create Sheet, or whether he or she had personal knowledge supporting the information, see Fed. R. Evid. 602, these are not requirements for admissibility under Rule 801(d)(2)(D). See United States v. Ammar, 714 F.2d 238, 254 (3d Cir. 1983); Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival & Research Center, Inc., 588 F.2d 626, 630-31 (8th Cir.1978) (holding that the personal knowledge requirement does not apply to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D)). Rather, it is sufficient under the Rule for the declarant to be a party’s employee and to have made the declaration within the scope of the employment. 8 We need not reach Lexington’s contention that the HPL Create Sheet fails to satisfy the business record exception to the hearsay rule because this document is either not hearsay or would likely qualify as an admission of a party opponent, see supra note 6. 21 Notwithstanding the HPL Create Sheet’s likely admissibility, this document can not preclude summary judgment because it has such minimal probative value that it could not be a basis on which a jury could find that West Penn had in fact reported the Lieb claim on or before December 31, 2001. White, who provides the only evidence in the record dealing with this document, could not discern the meaning of the notations on the HPL Create Sheet, identify the person who filled out the form, or even verify that the report was created on the date listed at the top of the form. Without further information about this form and the notations, a factfinder could not reasonably draw any inference from this document. More specifically, White testified that the purpose of the document is to retrieve information about a claim from the data processing department. The purpose is not, for example, to record the date of report or other information about the claim—it is merely a search tool. As noted above, while the fact that the HPL Create Sheet is in the nature of an inquiry, rather than assertion, renders it admissible as not hearsay, this same fact also diminishes the probative value of the information on the sheet because, viewing the notation as an inquiry, it cannot be used to prove that the date of report was in fact December 31, 2001. See United States v. Oguns, 921 F.2d 442, 449 (2d Cir. 1990) (“[A] question cannot be used to show the truth of the matter asserted . . . .”); Headley v. Tilghman, 53 F.3d 472 (2d Cir. 1995) (viewing a question as providing circumstantial evidence of the assumptions underlying the question, but not as probative of the truth of the items inquired about). There is no evidence of why this unknown employee used December 31, 2001, as the inquiry date, or whether this employee had any basis for using such date other than the fact that this was the last day of the policy period. Additionally, the HPL Create Sheet is dated August 23, 2003, long after the end of the policy period. Thus, we agree with Lexington that, even viewing this document and White’s testimony in the light most favorable to West Penn, the evidence shows at most that, more than a year and a half after the policy period, an unknown Lexington employee filled out the HPL Create Sheet to search for information about the 22 Lieb claim using December 31, 2001, as the report date. While we may not weigh evidence at the summary judgment stage, we further note that, pitted against this cryptic document, is the affidavit of West Penn’s General Counsel conceding that she notified Lexington of the Lieb claim on February 12, 2003—more than a year and a half after the policy period ended. Her February 12, 2003, letter makes no reference to prior communications between West Penn and Lexington, and simply provides a report of the claim. In light of this admission, and without any other information about this document, we do not believe a jury could reasonably rely on the HPL Create Sheet to find that West Penn in fact reported the claim prior to December 31, 2001. We therefore conclude that this document is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to when West Penn reported the Lieb claim.