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

1) Rule 11 Sanctions: “No First Amendment Exception to a Rule 11 Violation” — “[T]he First Amendment Covers Novel, Nonfrivolous Arguments, But Many Frivolous Arguments Are Also Novel” (Good Quotes) — Frivolous To Continue To Make Rejected Novel Arguments; (2) FRAP 38 Sanctions: District Court In Best Position to Set Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees and Costs

3 Prerequisites for Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions in Second Circuit: (1) Bad Faith, (2) Conduct That Is Entirely Without Color [Thus, An Ill-Motivated Colorable Position Appears to Be Protected in the Second Circuit], and (3) Improper Purpose— “To Gain A Strategic Advantage” Is An Improper Purpose — Due Process Satisfied by Opponent’s Motion and Multiple Court Conferences, After Which Target Was Allowed to Submit Additional Letters

Inherent Power Sanctions — Untimeliness as Laches — Laches Properly Applied to Deny Sanctions Motion — Note Waived Defenses to Laches

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Substantial Justification or Harmless Error (Ninth Circuit Factors) — Erie: When State Supreme Court Has Not Squarely Addressed an Issue, Circuit Must Predict How It Would Rule, Using Intermediate Appellate Decisions, Decisions from Other Jurisdictions, Statutes, Treatises And Restatements for Guidance

(1) Appellate Review of Inherent Power Sanctions (7th Circuit): Factual Findings Reviewed for Clear Error, Choice of Sanction for Abuse of Discretion — 4-Element Test for Reversal; (2) Sanctions and Class Actions: Monetary Sanctions Properly Imposed on Defendants for Improper Communications with Class Members (Represented Parties) — “[I]f The Class And The Class Opponent Are Involved In An Ongoing Business Relationship, Communications From The Class Opponent To The Class May Be Coercive” (Good Quote); (3) Monetary Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger: If Same Fact-Gathering Would Have Been Conducted Absent The Misconduct, No But-For Causation — But Only “Rough Justice” Required, “Not Accountant-Like Precision” (Good Quote) — Once Misconduct Is Clear, Time Spent Ferreting It Out Compensable under Goodyear; (4) Goodyear Did Not Overrule Long-Standing Rule That Courts May Impose Modest Civil Monetary Sanctions to Curb Litigation Abuse; (5) Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Where Sanctioned Attorney Fails to File Notice of Appeal and Lawyer’s Intent to Appeal Not Apparent from Client’s Notice; (5) Rule 11 Improper Purpose — Party May Have Many Purposes for Pursuing Claim — As Long As Claim Is Supported by Good Faith Belief in the Merits, “A Parallel Reason Does Not Violate Rule 11” — To Deny A Motion for Sanctions, The District Court Need Not Address Every Argument: “Arguments Clearly Without Merit Can, And For The Sake Of Judicial Economy Should, Be Passed Over In Silence” (Good Quote); Non-Monetary Sanction on Counsel: Complete Twice The Required Amount Of Professional Responsibility Hours For Her Next Continuing Legal Education Cycle Imposed By The State Bar

(1) Spoliation: Sanctions Are Warranted Only If the Movant Establishes That A Reasonable Trier of Fact Could Find That The Destroyed Evidence Would Support A Claim Or Defense — § 1927 Sanctions: “Courts Often Refuse to Award Sanctions When Both Parties Contributed to the Waste of Judicial Resources” (Good Quote)

No Sanctions Imposed on Counsel Who Submitted A.I.-Generated Phony Cases Without Checking Them in Good Faith on The Mistaken Assumption They Had Been Provided by Highly Respected Co-Counsel Rather Than His Criminally-Convicted, Disbarred Client — No Sanctions on Client Who Had No Access to LEXIS or Westlaw to Check the Phony Cases and Submitted Them in Good Faith: “It Would Have Been Downright Irrational For Him To Provide Fake Cases For [His Lawyer] To Include In The Motion Knowing They Were Fake —

(1) Electronic Spoliation — Rule 37(e)(2) Dismissal Sanction — Temporal Proximity of Spoliation to Production Due Date = Circumstantial Evidence of Intent; (2) While Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Abuse Of Discretion, Findings Of Fact Related To Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Clear Error; (3) Dismissal under Rule 37(e)(2) Plus Attorney’s Fees under Inherent Power Appropriately Combined [But see 2015 Advisory Committee Note: “New Rule 37(e) … authorizes and specifies measures a court may employ if information that should have been preserved is lost, and specifies the findings necessary to justify these measures. forecloses reliance on inherent authority or state law to determine when certain measures should be used.”]; (4) Compensatory Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger Appropriately Include Fees and Costs Resulting from Attempts to Settle Spoliation Motion

(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

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