Opinion ID: 6985051
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proper Foundation

Text: The Costantinos argue that even assuming that the ACOG video may be a learned treatise, Judge Gleeson erred in admitting it without a proper foundation. We disagree. Rule 803(18) explicitly requires trial judges to act as gatekeepers, ensuring that any treatise admitted is “authoritative.” Schneider v. Revici, 817 F.2d 987, 991 (2d Cir.1987). Thus, trial judges must first determine that the proffered treatise is “trustworth[y] ... as viewed by professionals in [the relevant] field.” Id.; see Fed.R.Evid. 803(18) Advisory Committee Note. In making this evaluation, trial judges need not be draconian. “Since the object of [Rule 803(18) ] is to make valuable information available to the trier of fact, trial judges should not insist on a quantum of proof ... that the proponent cannot meet.” See Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 803.23[4] (2d ed.1997) (citation omitted). Judge Gleeson’s finding that the authoritativeness of the ACOG video had been sufficiently established is reviewed for abuse of discretion and will not be disturbed absent “manifest error.” See Starter Corp. v. Converse, Inc., 170 F.3d 286, 292 (2d Cir.1999) (quoting Proteus Books Ltd. v. Cherry Lane Music Co., 873 F.2d 502, 514 (2d Cir.1989)). The Costantinos invite us to apply the reasoning of Meschino v. North American Drager, Inc., 841 F.2d 429 (1st Cir.1988). There, the First Circuit ruled that it was not enough that the trade magazine in which an article appeared was reputable; the author of the particular article must also to be shown to be an authority before the article could be used - as a learned treatise pursuant to Rule 803(18). See id. at 433-34; see also Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 23 F.3d 1175, 1184 (7th Cir.1994) (same). The Court reasoned that “[i]n these days of quantified research, and pressure to publish, an article does not reach the dignity of a ‘reliable authority’ merely because some editor, even a most reputable one, sees fit to circulate it.” Meschino, 841 F.2d at 434. The Costantinos argue that Meschino requires reversal because Judge Gleeson’s sole basis for accepting the video as authoritative was its sponsorship by ACOG. They claim that no testimony was offered that the video itself had received acceptance in the medical profession, or that its narrator, Dr. Young, was considered an authority in the field. And these omissions were particularly devastating, the Costantinos maintain, because as the Simmons■ court noted, it is unclear that the “careful, professional criticism” which ensures the reliability of printed treatises, also attends the production and dissemination of videotapes. 551 N.E.2d at 543. These arguments are unavailing. Even assuming that the potential authoritativeness of videotapes ■ is somehow more suspect than that of materials like “pamphlet[s]” explicitly listed by the Rule, we cannot fault the district court’s performance as a gatekeeper in this case. We, of course, agree with the Meschino court that the contents of a periodical cannot be automatically qualified “wholesale” under Rule 803(18) merely by showing that the periodical itself is highly regarded. 841 F.2d at 434. We do not, however, read Meschino to say that the reputation of the periodical containing the proffered article is irrelevant to the authoritativeness inquiry. Publication practices vary widely, and an article’s publication by an esteemed periodical which subjects its contents to close scrutiny and peer review, obviously reflects well on the authority of the article itself. Indeed, because the authoritativeness inquiry is governed by a “liberal” standard, good sense would seem to compel recognizing some periodicals — -provided there is a basis for doing so — as sufficiently esteemed to justify a presumption in favor of admitting the articles accepted for publication therein. See generally Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 803.23[4] (2d ed.1997); Allen v. Safeco Insurance Co., 782 F.2d 1517, 1519-20 (11th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 793 F.2d 1195 (1986); McCarty v. Sisters of Mercy Health Corp., 176 Mich.App. 593, 440 N.W.2d 417, 419-21 (1989). Turning to the instant case, there is no small irony in plaintiffs’ complaint that ACOG sponsorship was insufficient to establish the video as an authority. After all, while plaintiffs’ own expert Dr. Na-thanson refused to concede the authoritativeness of the video itself, he nevertheless: (1) touted himself as a member of ACOG; (2) praised ACOG as an organization that “publishes a great deal of material which serve[s] to contribute to setting a standard of care for obstetricians and gy-neeologists;” and (3) testified in a prior action that he generally accepted “the standards promulgated by ACOG” within the field of obstetrics as “authoritative.” Moreover, Dr. Nathanson relied in part on ACOG publications in reaching his opinion that Dr. Herzog had committed malpractice. In any event, other factors — quite apart from ACOG’s status as a reputable organization — established the authoritativeness of the video. In particular, Dr. Nathanson recalled seeing a version of the ACOG video at a staff conference, “inferentially conceding]” that it was exactly what the defense said it was: a training resource for the continuing medical education of obstetricians and gynecologists. Dawson v. Chrysler Corp., 630 F.2d 950, 960-61 (3d Cir.1980). And the video’s use as a training resource — “written primarily and impartially for professionals, subject to scrutiny and exposure for inaccuracy, with the reputation [of its producers and sponsors] at stake” — is clearly an important index of its authoritativeness under Rule 803(18). Fed.R.Evid. 803(18) Advisory Committee Note. Moreover, Judge Gleeson himself took the additional precaution of reviewing the ACOG video in camera. Through that review, Judge Gleeson knew that the tape’s narrator, Dr. Young, was a physician at Dartmouth College’s Hitchcock Medical Center, and that the video itself had won an ACOG award, credentials which compared favorably with those of any expert who testified at trial. And after the same review, Judge Gleeson found that the video was what the defense represented it to be: a training resource— with recommendations culled from the “available literature” — used to show doctors “how they should go about dealing with this problem [of shoulder dystocia].” Having viewed the videotape ourselves, and having observed its clinical format, as well as its calm and instructional tone, we cannot say this finding amounts to “manifest error.” Starter Corp., 170 F.3d at 297 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Loven, 831 S.W.2d at 397 (affirming trial court’s finding of authoritativeness after viewing challenged video). In sum, we conclude that Judge Gleeson’s determination that the ACOG video was sufficiently authoritative to deserve admission rested on an appropriate foundation. This was not a case in which there was “no basis” for finding the proffered treatise trustworthy. Schneider, 817 F.2d at 991. And while some of the indicia of the video’s reliability came to light through Judge Gleeson’s independent in camera review, rather than through testimony, the authoritativeness inquiry is a freewheeling one and may be conducted by “any means.” Fed.R.Evid. 803(18) Advisory Committee Note; see also Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 803.23[4] (2d ed.1997) (“trial judge[s] should be liberal in allowing other proof of ... authoritativeness, so long as it indicates that the [treatise] is recognized by the medical profession”) (citing Ward v. United States, 838 F.2d 182, 187 (6th Cir.1988)). Judge Gleeson did not abuse his discretion in finding that the ACOG video was sufficiently authoritative to be presented to the jury.