Opinion ID: 819756
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Are the Bank Guaranties Self-Authenticating?

Text: Plaintiffs also argue that because the guaranties are self-authenticating, the district court was presented with sufficient evidence of BNI’s commercial activity. They contend that the guaranties are self-authenticating (1) as commercial paper, (2) because they bear BNI’s watermark, and (3) as publications of public authority. See Aplt. Open. Br. 18, 25–28 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 902(9), (7), (5); Utah Code Ann. § 70A-3-104(1)). Again, Plaintiffs did not raise these arguments before the district court and have waived them. See Cummings, 393 F.3d at 1190. We do not find any exceptional reason to consider them. See In re C.W. Mining Co., 625 F.3d 1240, 1246 (10th Cir. 2010). C. Are the Statements About the Telephone Conversations Sufficiently Authenticated? Plaintiffs next argue that there was sufficient evidence that Dr. Firmansyah and Mr. Budiwiyono were agents of party-opponent BNI and that the district court erred in finding that their alleged statements during various telephone conversations were inadmissable hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) (describing admissions by party-opponents as non-hearsay). Plaintiffs rely on evidence about how the telephone number for BNI was obtained, that calls were answered purportedly by BNI representatives, and that the conversations related -9- to business one would expect to be conducted over the phone. See Aplt. Open. Br. 18–19, 28–32. Plaintiffs contend that Rule 901(b)(6) or 902(5) establishes that the statements were made by someone at or on behalf of BNI such that they are admissible under Rule 801(d)(2). Again, we are not persuaded. Generally, “[Fed. R. Civ. P.] 56 precludes the use of inadmissible hearsay testimony in depositions submitted . . . in opposition to, summary judgment.” Lancaster v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 5, 149 F.3d 1228, 1236 (10th Cir. 1998) (quotation omitted). When an otherwise inadmissible hearsay statement is made by a party-opponent, however, it may be admitted under Rule 801(d)(2). In order to qualify as an admission by a partyopponent, Plaintiffs must establish that it was made by the party or that the party adopted or authorized it. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). Neither Rule 901(b)(6) nor Rule 902(5) gets us there. Rule 901(b)(6)(B) provides that a telephone call to a business is authenticated if there is evidence that a person placed a call to a telephone number assigned by the telephone company to that particular business and the subject of the telephone call related to business that is reasonably transacted over the telephone. See Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(6)(B) & cmt. On a purported BNI website that no longer exists, Mr. Hansen found a phone number and he—or someone with whom he worked—called it. Aplt. App. 581. Mr. McKee, Mr. McDougal, and Mr. Finkel-Minkin had similar experiences. See id. at 1173, 566, - 10 - 587. Plaintiffs admit that “there is no evidence in the record that the telephone number called . . . was the number assigned by the telephone company to BNI.” Aplt. Open. Br. 31. Without additional evidence, Rule 901(b)(6) cannot be used to establish that these statements were made by anyone at, or on behalf of, BNI. Therefore the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Dr. Firmansyah and Mr. Budiwiyono could not be considered party-opponents on this ground. Plaintiffs nevertheless argue that the website should be considered selfauthenticating pursuant to Rule 902(5) and that the statements made during calls to a number on that website are therefore admissible. Aplt. Open. Br. 31 & n.6. We disagree. The rule provides that “[a] book, pamphlet, or other publication purporting to be issued by a public authority” is self-authenticating. Fed. R. Evid. 902(5). A website of a foreign bank does not fall squarely within the language of this rule. See, e.g., id. 902(5) cmt. (“Dispensing with preliminary proof of the genuineness of purportedly official publications [is] most commonly encountered in connection with statutes, court reports, rules, and regulations . . . .”). Moreover, a telephone number retrieved from a website in these circumstances does not have the sufficient indicia of reliability that justifies the self-authentication exceptions in the first place. See id. 902 cmt. Generally, Rule 902 eases Rule 901’s requirements of authentication where the possibility of fraud, forgery, and mis-attribution of certain documents is slight. This is hardly - 11 - the case here. We therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the telephone conversations as inadmissible hearsay. D. Was the Budianto Declaration Based on Personal Knowledge? Plaintiffs argue that they established a foundation for personal knowledge, and the district court erred in excluding the Budianto Declaration given Mr. Budianto’s alleged meetings and telephone conferences with specified BNI officials. See Aplt. Open. Br. 19, 32–36. In particular, Plaintiffs point out that Mr. Budianto claims to know certain individuals as BNI officials, that he met with them in Indonesia, that he spoke with them over the phone, and that he was involved with guaranties issued to NARCO. See Aplt. App. 1215–18. His statements are not so clear. Rule 602 states: “A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own testimony.” Fed. R. Evid. 602. Although affidavits are entirely proper on summary judgment, the content or substance of the evidence contained therein must be admissible. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 327 (1986); Thomas v. Int’l Bus. Machs., 48 F.3d 478, 485 (10th Cir. 1995); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4) (“[The affidavit] must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.”). “Under the personal knowledge standard, an affidavit is inadmissible if - 12 - ‘the witness could not have actually perceived or observed that which he testifies to.’” Argo v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan., Inc., 452 F.3d 1193, 1200 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Sinclair, 109 F.3d 1527, 1536 (10th Cir. 1997)). Mr. Budianto was not employed by BNI. Aplt. App. 902, 915–16. Nor did he personally know the various bank officials despite the fact he claims to have met them in Indonesia. Aplee. Supp. App. 24–25. He also was not present when the purported BNI guaranties were issued. Aplt. App. 1217–18. This certainly makes it questionable whether he could have actually perceived or observed the events or documents in question. See Sinclair, 109 F.3d at 1536. The district court found that the statement in the declaration that came the closest to establishing a foundation was: As an agent of NARCO in Indonesia, I received funds from various parties, paid on behalf of NARCO, for the issuance of these bank guarantees. I paid those funds by submitting the fund to the appointed officials representing the collateral owner and they further depositing them into BNI Bank accounts as directed by Dr. Firmansyah through their bank officers, for issuance of these guarantees. Hansen, 2012 WL 567191, at . The district court nevertheless concluded that the statement did not satisfy Rule 602 as it fails to give the most basic of details about the actual deposit. Id. This is not an abuse of discretion. See Argo, 452 F.3d at 1200. The declaration is woefully short on details about the transaction, and it is not clear to - 13 - whom the “collateral owner” refers. Even assuming it is NARCO, the paragraph does not explain how Mr. Budianto has any personal knowledge concerning the disposition of the funds. See Aplt. App. 1215–18. This lack of detail provides no information about the deposits that might authenticate the financial instruments. See Aplee. Supp. App. 19–24. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, requiring evidence to establish personal knowledge of these transactions does not graft additional requirements of admissibility to Rule 56. We think the district court got it right in concluding that the information provided lacks an adequate foundation and therefore would be inadmissible. Two additional points deserve mention. First, although Plaintiffs rely almost exclusively on Mr. Budianto’s declaration to establish a genuine issue of material fact, they failed to disclose Mr. Budianto to BNI, see Aplt. App. 1318–22, 1307–1314, in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a). Plaintiffs have not provided substantial justification for this failure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). Second, attached to Mr. Budianto’s declaration are completely different versions of the financial instruments previously relied upon the Plaintiffs. See Aplt. App. 1271–72; compare id. at 1219–25 with id. at 1358–80. Although Plaintiffs argue that the inconsistent evidence is permissible and that these are additional bank guaranties issued to NARCO, see Aplt. Reply Br. 6–8, this does not seem plausible coming this late in the litigation. Regardless, this argument was not made before the district court and is inconsequential to our conclusion that the - 14 - district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the Budianto Declaration inadmissible for lack of foundation. E. Did the District Court Correctly Apply the Summary Judgment Standard? Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in excluding the Budianto Declaration because it impermissibly made a credibility determination, weighed evidence, and drew inferences adverse to Mr. Hansen. See Aplt. Open. Br. 19–20, 36–38 (citing Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 254). For example, Plaintiffs cite the district court’s statement that “the declaration’s credibility is so suspect that the declaration itself may constitute a fraud on the court” as an improper credibility determination. Hansen, 2012 WL 567191, at ; see Aplt. Open. Br. 37. Plaintiffs maintain that the declaration alone raises a genuine dispute of material fact that should have prevented summary judgment. Aplt. Open. Br. 36. Plaintiffs are undoubtedly correct that a judge may not make credibility determinations on summary judgment. The Supreme Court made clear in Liberty Lobby that “[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” 477 U.S. at 254. However, like BNI, we read the district court’s statement as prompted by the obvious lack of foundation provided and the manner in which the statement was procured. See Aplee. Br. 43. Regardless, the district court’s admonition is dicta and unnecessary to its holding. Because Plaintiffs failed to provide significant probative evidence of BNI’s commercial activity to raise a genuine issue of material fact, the district court did - 15 - not err in granting summary judgment to BNI. AFFIRMED. - 16 -