Opinion ID: 710103
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exclusion of Videotape

Text: 23 Medite also argues the ALJ erred in excluding its proffered videotape which it argues demonstrates serious misconduct by Tafoya on the picket line. The Board upheld the ALJ's exclusion, stating: 24 We find that the judge properly excluded the videotape because an inadequate foundation was laid for its admission. The Respondent proffered the videotape during R. Cordova's testimony. R. Cordova was a guard at the plant and he videotaped the ... incident. The proffered videotape, however, was edited prior to the trial by someone other than R. Cordova, and R. Cordova was unable to testify regarding how the tape was edited. For this reason, we agree with the judge that the tape was inadmissible. 25 Medite of New Mexico, Inc., 314 NLRB at 1146 n. 7. The Board further concluded that Medite suffered no prejudice from the exclusion of the videotape, because the ALJ indicated that, based on his viewing of the videotape, it did not demonstrate that Tafoya had engaged in misconduct, and that finding was supported by Medite's witnesses. 26 The Ninth Circuit recently observed that [i]n deciding whether to enforce the Board's decision, we assess whether the Board's evidentiary rulings were correct. NLRB v. Bakers of Paris, Inc., 929 F.2d 1427, 1434 (9th Cir.1991). Ordinarily, this is a matter of determining whether the Board properly applied the federal rules of evidence. Id.; see also Carpenter Sprinkler Corp. v. NLRB, 605 F.2d 60, 66 (2d Cir.1979) ([I]t is up to the courts of appeals to review evidentiary rulings of the Board, and to determine the extent to which rules of Board proceedings must conform to the rules of the federal courts.). We have stated that  '[m]otion pictures ... must be premised by a foundation of accuracy and fairness.'  Bannister v. Town of Noble, 812 F.2d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir.1987) (quoting Sanchez v. Denver & Rio Grande W R.R. Co., 538 F.2d 304, 306 n. 1 (10th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1042, 97 S.Ct. 742, 50 L.Ed.2d 754 (1977)). Medite does not dispute the Board's finding that someone other than the maker of the tape, R. Cordova, edited the tape prior to trial and that Cordova was unable to testify as to how it was edited. We agree with the Board that there was an inadequate foundation of accuracy. See United States v. Roach, 28 F.3d 729, 733 (8th Cir.1994) (holding that, as part of foundational guidelines for the admission of electronic tape recordings, proponent must show that no changes, additions, or deletions have ... been made in the recording).