USA v. Martens

Filing 18

MINUTE ORDER denying 16 Plaintiff's Motion for Court to Take Judicial Notice of the Following Facts That Are Not Subject to Reasonable Dispute, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 9/10/14.(sgrim)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 14–cv–01199–WYD–KMT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREGORY MARTENS,
Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
Plaintiff’s “Motion for Court to Take Judicial Notice of the Following Facts That Are Not
Subject to Reasonable Dispute” (Doc. No. 16, filed September 8, 2014) is DENIED.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the court may take judicial notice of a fact that is “not
subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial
jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to
sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Judicial notice
is a means by which facts can be established as true in a court of law, without the normal
requirements of proof by evidence. In order for a fact to be judicially noticed pursuant to Rule
201, “indisputability is a prerequisite.” Hennessy v. Penril Datacomm Networks, Inc., 69 F.3d
1344, 1354 (7th Cir. 1995). That is, judicial notice should be exercised with great caution—the
matter noticed must be of common and general knowledge, and it must be authoritatively settled
and free from doubt or uncertainty. See, e.g., Lussier v. Runyon, 50 F.3d 1103 (1st Cir. 1995);
Korematsu v. United States, 584 F. Supp. 1406, 1415 (N.D. Cal. 1984) (“Care must be taken that
Rule 201 not be used as a substitute for more rigorous evidentiary requirements and careful fact
finding.”).
Plaintiff asks the court to take judicial notice of certain “facts” apparently related to the General
Accounting Office. (See Doc. No. 16.) Plaintiff fails to provide any citation reference for the
facts or to provide documents in which the facts are contained. The court has significant doubt
as to whether many of these matters are “adjudicative facts” as contemplated by Rule 201, much
less that they are “facts” at all. Accordingly, the court cannot take judicial notice of either the
authenticity or the content of the facts provided by Plaintiff. Moreover, there is no reason for the

court to take judicial notice of the facts at this time, as there is no motion at issue and no trial
date has been set.
Dated: September 10, 2014

2