Opinion ID: 168353
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Tenth Circuit Approach

Text: 43 Our precedent suggests that where a conflict exists between the Federal Rules of Evidence and state law, we apply the Federal Rules unless the state law reflects substantive concerns or policies. 44 The admissibility of evidence in diversity cases in federal court is generally governed by federal law. Nevertheless, it is well recognized that Congress did not intend the procedural rules to preempt the so-called substantive state rules of evidence, such as the parol evidence rule, the collateral source rule, or the statute of frauds; although the application of these rules will affect the admissibility of some evidence, they in reality serve substantive state policies regulating private transactions. 45 Macsenti v. Becker, 237 F.3d 1223, 1241 (10th Cir.2001) (quotations omitted); see Romine v. Parman, 831 F.2d 944, 944-45 (10th Cir.1987) (noting that while admissibility of evidence in diversity cases in federal court is generally governed by federal law, state law must be applied when an evidentiary question is so dependent on a state substantive policy). 46 In our most noteworthy and extensive discussion of this issue, Moe v. Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet Aviation, 727 F.2d 917, 930-33 (10th Cir.1984), we addressed the applicability of the Federal Rule of Evidence governing subsequent remedial measures. We held that state law rather than Rule 407 prevails, thus rejecting the notion that the admissibility of evidence in diversity actions is governed exclusively by federal law—that is, the Federal Rules of Evidence. Id. at 931. We employed instead an Erie analysis and categorized the state law as one of substance, not procedure. In doing so, we stated such distinction was necessary to effect the twin goals of Erie —(1) uniformity, and (2) prevention of forum-shopping. Id. at 932. We concluded, 47 If the law of the state supplies the rule of decision, there is no justification for reliance on Rule 407. We recognize that, by its terms, Rule 407, when read in conjunction with Rules 401 and 402, does appear to apply in these cases. However, such a result is an unwarranted incursion into the Erie doctrine. 48 Id. 49 We are careful to point out, however, that the court's discussion regarding the application of the Federal Rules of Evidence was dicta. As the court observed: Notwithstanding our view that the trial court erred in ruling that ... Rule 407 applies in diversity actions without regard to state law, we hold that no harm resulted therefrom because the trial court's actions were proper and correct on other grounds. Id. at 933. Indeed, one judge in a concurring opinion refused to join the court's Erie discussion, stating, 50 I concur in [the] result and in the opinion of the court except to the extent that it purports to resolve the difficult question of possible conflict between state and federal rules of evidence. As the court's opinion makes clear, that discussion is not necessary to our decision which properly rests on the independent ground of balancing mandated by Rule 403 and parallel state authority. 51 Id. at 936 (McKay, J., concurring). 52