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

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Judicial Notice of Non-Governmental Internet Publications Limited to Their Existence — Statements Not Considered for Their Truth

Download PDF

Platt v. Bd. of Comm’rs on Grievances and Discipline, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131423 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2016):

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 50) and Defendants' Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 56). These motions have been fully briefed. (Docs. 55, 60, 62, 68). Also before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Take Judicial Notice. (Doc. 52). Defendants have filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. 57) and Plaintiffs have filed a Reply (Doc. 61).

I. [*2]  BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs challenge provisions of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct which prohibits judicial candidates from making public political party speeches and endorsements of another candidate, Ohio Code J. Cond. 4.1(A)(2)-(3); and places restrictions on direct, personal monetary solicitation of campaign contributions by judicial candidates, Ohio Code J. Cond. 4.4(A). Plaintiffs have brought several constitutional claims, but at issue here is Plaintiffs' claim that these provisions are unconstitutionally vague and violate the First Amendment.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Judicial Notice

Plaintiffs seek to have this Court take judicial notice of three internet publications concerning endorsements made by sitting members of the Ohio Supreme Court which were found to not be a violation of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct. Two of these publications were gathered from newspaper websites. The third publication is an opinion piece from a website entitled ohiodailyblog.com.

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b), a court "may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy [*3]  cannot reasonably be questioned." Fed. R. Evid. 201. "[A] court may take judicial notice of at least some documents of public record." Passa v. City of Columbus, 123 F. App'x 694, 697 (6th Cir. 2005). However, judicial notice is limited to the existence of the documents, and a court is not to consider the statements contained in the document for the truth of the matter asserted. In re Omnicare, Inc. Sec. Litig., 769 F.3d 455, 467 (6th Cir. 2014); see also Passa, 123 Fed.Appx. 694, 697 ("in general a court may only take judicial notice of a public record whose existence or contents prove facts whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned").

Plaintiffs specifically ask this Court to consider the statements in the internet publications concerning "the disposition of these grievances" to support their position that "one must guess at the scope of what is permitted and prohibited under Rule 4.1(A)(3)." (Doc. 52, PAGEID #1282). This Court cannot consider such statements under Rule 201(b). Therefore, Plaintiffs' Motion to Take Judicial Notice is DENIED.

 

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