Opinion ID: 164208
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Exclusion of the Audiotape

Text: Defendants also argue the district court erred in excluding an audiotape from evidence for failure to disclose and improper foundation. We review the district court’s exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion. United Int’l Holdings, Inc., 210 F.3d at 1230. “Decisions on evidentiary matters lie within the sound discretion of the district court . . . .” Orjias v. Stevenson, 31 F.3d 995, 999 (10th Cir. 1994). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B), a party must automatically disclose “a copy of, or a description by category and location of, all documents, data compilations, 14 and tangible things that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party and that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless solely for impeachment.” Further, Rule 26(e)(1) requires a party to supplement or amend its disclosures and discovery responses if it learns the information disclosed or the response is somehow incomplete or incorrect. To ensure compliance with the initial disclosure requirements, Rule 37(c)(1) provides that “[a] party that without substantial justification fails to disclose information required by Rule 26(a) or 26(e)(1) . . . is not, unless such failure is harmless, permitted to use as evidence at a trial . . . any witness or information not so disclosed.” A proper foundation must be laid before a relevant audiotape can be admitted into evidence. United States v. Cook, 794 F.2d 561, 567 (10th Cir. 1986). Additionally, “authentication” is a “condition precedent” to the admissibility of evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 901. A party may authenticate an audiotape in several ways. See, e.g., United States v. Green, 175 F.3d 822, 830 n.3 (10th Cir. 1999). The recording, however, must be complete without any changes, additions, or deletions. Id. Ultimately, determinations of the admissibility of an audiotape and its authenticity “have repeatedly been held to be within the purview of the sound discretion of the trial judge.” United States v. Brinklow, 560 F.2d 1008, 1011 (10th Cir. 1977). In this case, the district court held the audiotape was inadmissible for several reasons. First, the district court explained the audiotape was inadmissible “based on 15 [D]efendants’ failure to previously produce the tape in response to [P]laintiff’s request for information and on [D]efendants’ failure to supplement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.” Aerotech, 191 F. Supp. 2d at 1230. Defendants, however, claim they did not violate Rule 26’s disclosure requirements because they only planned to use the audiotape as impeachment evidence. Further, Defendants claim that absent a duty to disclose, no duty to supplement exists under Rule 26(e)(1). Defendants are correct in pointing out that Rule 26(a)(1)(B) does not require automatic disclosure of information used “solely for impeachment.” After reviewing the record and the district court’s order, however, it’s fair to say that the district court concluded the information in the audiotape was offered for more than just impeachment purposes. We generally defer to the district court’s decision requiring disclosure if the court determines the evidence is offered for reasons other than impeachment. See Searles v. Van Bebber, 251 F.3d 869, 877 (10th Cir. 2001). Therefore, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded the audiotape because of Defendants’ failure to disclose. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded Defendants’ audiotape for improper foundation. As stated, an important factor to consider regarding the admissibility of a sound recording is whether changes, additions, or deletions have been made to the recording. Green, 175 F.3d at 830 n.3. Here, the district court was particularly concerned with the audiotape because the taped conversation was not complete, the audiotape offered at trial was a copy of the original, the date of the 16 recording was unknown, and the person who copied the audiotape was unavailable at trial. Aerotech, 191 F. Supp. 2d at 1230. After listening to the audiotape included in the record, we agree with the district court and conclude that the authenticity of the tape is questionable. “The trial court is in a unique position to consider whether the foundation upon which the recording is being admitted insures the authenticity of the recording.” Brinklow, 560 F.2d at 1011. Given our deference to the district court regarding evidentiary matters, the court’s decision to exclude the audiotape was not an abuse of discretion.