Opinion ID: 1314502
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: admissibility of the saranac documents

Text: The Saranac documents are historical documents which relate to studies, interim reports, and a final report issued in 1952, recording the results of experiments involving the exposure of various animals to the asbestos product produced by Gypsum. Gypsum and several other sponsors allegedly underwrote the project. These documents tend to indicate that the studies showed a link between asbestos and cancer. Gypsum challenges the admissibility of the documents surrounding the Saranac studies because the documents were unauthenticated and irrelevant. First, we agree with the trial court's determination of the authenticity of the Saranac documents. South Carolina follows the principle articulated in Fed. R.Evidence 901(b)(4) which permits a finding of authenticity based on the appearance, contents, substance, [and] internal patterns of documents. The authenticity of a document: may be established by circumstantial evidence if its tenor, subject matter, and the parties between whom it purports to have passed make it fairly fit into an approved course of conduct, and manifests the probability that the subject-matters of its contents was known only to the apparent writer and the person to whom it was written ... State v. Hightower , 221 S.C. 91, 105, 69 S.E. (2d) 363, 370 (1952). Prior to his ruling, the trial judge examined each of the documents submitted by Kershaw. An examination of these documents establishes that the documents relate to the same subject, are internally consistent, often refer to or answer each other, frequently bear the senders' letterhead and fit together in a fashion which would be impossible to fabricate. Additionally, we hold that the documents were relevant. The determination of relevancy is within the discretion of the trial judge. State v. Jeffcoat , 279 S.C. 167, 303 S.E. (2d) 855 (1933). The Saranac documents were admissible not only to show what Gypsum could have known about asbestos and cancer, but what it actually did know. See Valori v. Johns-Manville Corporation , No. 82-2686, 1985 WL 6074 (D.N.J. Dec. 11, 1985) (Saranac Documents held relevant to question of whether asbestos manufacturer had knowledge of hazardous nature of product.) Although the parties were entitled to argue different interpretations of the meaning of the documents, the documents themselves were properly admitted as relevant evidence.