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

Recipient of Voicemail May Authenticate It by Memory, Regardless of Existence of Transcript

Download PDF

Pawelczak v. Nations Recovery Ctr., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82916 (N.D. Ill. June 14, 2012):

Pawelczak filed this action against NRC for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA" or "the Act") 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. Pawelczak alleges that NRC left several messages on her voice mail system, and that NRC failed to provide necessary disclosures in those messages under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d(6) and 1692e(11).

NRC's Phone Calls to Pawelczak

Sometime prior to December 11, 2010, Pawelczak, a resident of Mount Prospect, Illinois, defaulted on a financial obligation owed to Applied Bank, a creditor. The obligation was for personal, family, or household purposes. NRC, a debt collector headquartered in Georgia that does business in Illinois, eventually obtained rights to collect on Pawelczak's debt.

NRC contacts its debtors in two ways: "live calls" placed by NRC employees, and automated calls placed through Dial Connect, a system that contacts debtors with pre-recorded messages ("recorded calls"). Between December 11, 2010 and March 29, 2011, NRC called and left Pawelczak 21 voice mail messages - eight live calls originating  [*3] from four different NRC employees, and thirteen recorded calls. Pawelczak heard none of the 21 messages in real time, and at no time did she answer any of the phone calls from NRC. In each of the live calls, an NRC employee left a message for Pawelczak requesting that she call that employee back at a phone number belonging to NRC. None of the eight live calls identified NRC as a debt collector or disclosed that the purpose of the phone call was to collect a debt. In two of the live calls, the NRC representatives mentioned Applied Bank but nothing regarding a debt owed. The NRC representatives also failed to disclose that they were calling on behalf of NRC in three of the eight live messages, but did do so in the remaining five messages. 2

2   NRC disputes the content of each of the proffered voice mail messages. It argues that the messages are based on inadmissible hearsay, and that Pawelczak has provided no evidence that the transcripts are based on authentic and original recordings. Also, with respect to the recorded calls, NRC disputes that they were left on Pawelczak's voice mail system, and instead claims that Dial Connect detected that a live person answered the calls and listened  [*4] to the messages.

Each of the thirteen recorded NRC calls left the following identical voice mail message:

   Important message for Anna Pawelczak. If this is Anna Pawelczak press the one key on your phone now and you will be connected to the next available agent. Again, if this is Anna Pawelczak press one to be connected, otherwise disregard this call or contact us at [phone number] to remove this number. Thank you.

None of the recorded calls left with Pawelczak's voice mail system identified NRC as the source of the call, identified the caller as a debt collector, or indicated that the purpose of the calls related to collecting a debt. At the time she received these phone calls, Pawelczak was unaware that the calls came from a debt collector, or that the calls concerned the collection of a debt. Pawelczak has not received any written communications from NRC. 3

3   NRC mailed Pawelczak a letter titled "First Notice New Retail" on December 13, 2010, but the parties do not dispute that she did not receive it.

***

I. Evidentiary Rulings

A. Admissibility of Voice Mail Messages Left for Pawelczak

NRC objects to admitting the transcripts into evidence because (1) the transcripts constitute inadmissible hearsay, and (2) Pawelczak provided no evidence that the transcripts were based on original and authentic recordings from NRC, and that NRC is unable to authenticate the transcripts.

Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and is generally inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), 802. However, such a statement offered against an opposing party that was made by the party's employee is not hearsay, and is admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D); See Germano v. Int'l Profit Ass'n, 544 F.3d 798, 801 (7th Cir. 2008). The content of the voice mail messages are based on calls from NRC employees and are therefore non-hearsay statements.

Nor is NRC's authenticity objection availing. That Pawelczak's testimony refers  [*9] to a "transcript" does not negate her ability to competently testify as to the content of the voice mail messages based on her own recollection of receiving and listening to them. Snyder v. Tiller, 3:08-CV-00470 JD, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90266, * 13 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 30, 2010); citing Jackim v. Sam's East, Inc., Nos. 07-3514, 08-4701, 378 Fed. Appx. 556, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10702, * 26-27 (6th Cir. May 25, 2010) ("[Declarant's] knowledge of the day did not come from the video, but his own senses and memory. The fact that a video recording may at times be in fact the 'best' evidence of what occurred does not render first-hand testimony of the event incompetent."). Because the NRC statements are non-hearsay and Pawelczak is competent to testify as to the content of the voice mail messages, Pawelczak's recollection of the content of messages are admissible.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Abuse of Discretion Review = Legal Conclusions De Novo. Factual Findings for Clear Error — (2) Client May Be Sanctioned for Misconduct of Its Counsel, Though Here Client Was Directly Involved in Bad Faith Misbehavior — (3) Is There A Difference, Under Rule 11 As Opposed to Rule 37, Concerning Whether A Client Can Be Sanctioned for Its Counsel’s Misconduct? — (4) While Sanctions of Last Resort (Dismissal/Default) Are Apt Only If Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Ensure Compliance, Rule 37 Doesn’t Require the Vain Gesture of First Imposing Lessert Sanctions When It Is Clear They Would be Ineffective — (5) Court’s Reconsideration of Non-Final Orders Is Governed by Rule 54(b), And Court’s Discretion under That Rule Is Governed by the Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine

RICO: (1) Special Pleading Requirements? — (2) Although Enterprise Must Be More Than a Summation of the Predicate Acts, The Predicate Acts Can Demonstrate the Existence of the Enterprise — (3) Requirement That Association-in-Fact Exist For Purposes Other Than Just to Commit Predicate Acts Merely Requires Continuity — (4) To State an Association-in-Fact Enterprise Consisting of One Natural Person and Collection of Legal Fictions Requires Factual Detail As to How They Acted Together — (5) “A § 1962(c) Enterprise Must Be More Than An Association of Individuals Or Entities Conducting the Normal Affairs of a Defendant Corporation” (Good Quote)

RICO: (1) Fee Award May Exceed Amount Recovered — Strict Proportionality Not Required — (2) Nonmonetary Benefits and Injunctive Relief Recovered Also Relevant Factors — (3) Loss on Some Claims Need Not Result in Lowered Fees, Especially When Both Arise Out of The Same Nucleus of Operative Facts

RICO: Indirect Purchasers (Car Buyers/Renters) Lack Standing to Sue Manufacturers for RICO Violations Even Though Intermediaries (Auto Dealer Direct Purchasers) Lack Any Damages

RICO: Statutory Requirement that RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Establish a More Liberal Pleading Standard for RICO Claims — “To Be Sure, Adequately Pleading a RICO Claim Can Be Challenging” (Good Quote) — Court May Dismiss Action Pursuant to Rule 41(b) Absent A Motion

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