New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Email Authentication — Testimony from (i) Recipient That Deceased Sent Message and (ii) Third Party That He Discussed Substance with Decedent Suffices — No Hearsay Problem when Offered for Effect on the Listener

Download PDF

Meyer v. Callery Conway Mars HV, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 937 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 5, 2015):

This case centers on allegations that John Meyer was unlawfully discharged by his employer because of his age. The Defendant employer says that Meyer was lawfully fired because he directed the repair of a machine in a way that could have injured or killed others. Now before the Court are Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 29) and its motion to exclude evidence pertaining to damages (ECF No. 33). In connection with its motion requesting the exclusion of evidence, the Defendant also asks for an award of attorney's fees as a sanction. ECF No. 33 at 16,  50. Because a jury could conclude that the Defendant applied a discriminatory "double standard" in choosing to fire the Plaintiff, the motion for summary judgment will be denied. The Defendant's motion to exclude Plaintiffs evidence pertaining to damages will be granted in part. The Defendant's request for an award of attorney's fees for Plaintiff s discovery misbehavior will be granted in part.

***

This case centers on a problem in May 2012 with one of the Defendant's products, the Voss Enhancing Leveler ("VEL") machine. ECF No. 31 at 22. Bill Streed ... who reported to Meyer, discovered that the third VEL machine manufactured by Herr-Voss had an oversized key slot. ECF Nos. 31 & 40 at 29. That defect, if left uncorrected, would have rendered the VEL machine unfit for use. Jd at  30. Streed notified Meyer of the defect in April 2012. Id at 29. Meyer sent the key slot to Herr-Voss' welding shop and instructed a subordinate to weld the key slot in a manner that would allow it to be "remachined." ld. at~36.

Meyer's immediate supervisor was Wally Markle ("Markle"), who served as Herr-Voss' production manager. ECF Nos. 31 & 40 at 43. Markle noticed that the key slot was in the welding shop and inquired as to why it was there. ld. at  43-44. Meyer responded to Markle's inquiry by stating that the key slot had been incorrectly "machined" and needed to be fixed....

During the relevant [*4]  period of time, James McKenna ("McKenna") served as Herr-Voss' President of Coil Solutions. ECF No.1 at  9. Mark Menego ("Menego") was the lead engineer working on the VEL project. ECF No. 31 at  47. At 4:32 P.M. on Tuesday, May 1, 2012,

Menego emailed McKenna the following message:

Found out this afternoon that the shop had a problem machining the key slot on one of the yoke ends for one of the VELs.  As I understand it the machine tool lost position and the key slot was off by .011"  Nobody from engineering or the VEL Team were notified of this! The shop decided to weld the key slot so they could remachine it, photos attached. I am not in favor of this repair.  Given the load that this connection carries I have major concerns about using a piece repaired in this manner.  Had we been given notice, we could have considered other alternatives and saved the piece.  However, as it stands now, the part should be scrapped.

ECF No. 32-5 at 9-10. McKenna forwarded Menego's message to Meyer and Markle the next morning, asking that they explain who was responsible for the incorrect repair decision and provide the applicable "replacement cost in material and labor." ld. at 9. In a response sent to McKenna on [*5]  the morning of May 3, 2012, Meyer acknowledged that he had made the decision after discussing it with Markle and his "staff." ECF No. 32-5 at 8. Meyer further stated that "final machining" would be conducted "to return the part to the drawing dimensions." Id.

McKenna quickly responded to Meyer's message by emailing him the following instructions:

Do not put back up on the mill. You are NOT authorized to determine the proper fixes for machining errors without consulting the responsible engineer.

***

Changing gears, and in a further attempt to destroy the factual predicate for Mostowy's discharge decision, Meyer suggests that Menego's death has rendered it impossible for Herr-Voss to establish the authenticity of the message sent to McKenna on May 1,2012. ECF No. 39 at 11. Menego's authorship of the message, however, was discussed and confirmed during McKenna's deposition. ECF No. 56 at 7-8. Mostowy later declared that he had spoken with Menego about the contents of the message.... Considered together, that gets the email message over the authenticity hurdle. FED. R. EVID. 901 (b)(l). Then, because Menego's statements are being offered by Herr-Voss to demonstrate their effect on Mostowy's decision, rather [*35]  than to prove the ultimate truth of the matters asserted in them, they do not constitute inadmissible hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 801(c)(2); see Faulkner v. Super Valu Stores, Inc., 3 F.3d 1419,1434-35 (lOth Cir. 1993); Architectural Testing, Inc. v. Unemployment Compo Bd. ofReview, 940 A.2d 1277, 1282 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008).

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Sanctions Enforcement and Appealability: Failure to Pay Rule 37 Sanctions and Otherwise Comply with Discovery Orders Leads to Dismissal under Rule 41(b) — Second Circuit Factors for Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with Court Orders — Belated, Partial Compliance with Orders Does Not Deprive District Court of Discretion to Dismiss Based on Continuing Non-Compliance with Other Aspects of Orders — “Hopelessly Belated Compliance” with Court Orders Not Accorded Great Weight — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal under Rule 41(b) And Are Unreviewable

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice