Northview Christian Church Inc v. J & J Group Inc et al

Filing 97

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 83 Motion to Take Judicial Notice. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

NORTHVIEW CHRISTIAN CHURCH,
INC.,

Case No. 4:10-CV-382-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
J & J GROUP, INC. JASON SOUTH
MECHANICAL SYSTEM
SOLUTIONSGROUP, PLLC, d/b/a
Engineering System Solutions, MS2EE
PLLC, dba Engineering System
Solutions, E & D Company PLLC,
d/b/a Engineering System Solutions,
ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL
DETAILING, LLC, d/b/a Engineering
System Solutions,
Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Northview Christian Church, Inc.’s Request for
Judicial Notice (Dkt. 83). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny
Northview’s request.
ANALYSIS
Federal Rules of Evidence 201 authorizes a court to take judicial notice of
adjudicative facts so long as any such facts is “not subject to reasonable dispute in that it
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

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). Rule 201 provides further that “[i]n a
civil action or proceeding, the court shall instruct the jury to accept as conclusive any fact
judicially noticed.” FED. R. EVID. 201(g).
Northview asks the Court to take judicial notice of two documents attached as
exhibits to its request: (1) an insurance policy produced by Defendants; and (2) a
certificate of assumed business name, filed with the Idaho Secretary of State. The Court
declines to accede to Northview’s request. First, as Defendants have argued, Rule 201
only permits this Court to judicially notice “adjudicative facts” and not entire documents
in toto. Second, the Court declines to take judicial notice of documents without knowing
for what purpose Northview intends to use them.
Moreover, as Defendants also pointed out, none of the cases Northview cites in
support of its request for judicial notice of the documents pertain to Rule 201 or judicial
notice.1 Rather, the cases Northview cites deal with questions of authenticity under Rule
901. But authentication of a document differs from taking judicial notice of a fact.
“Authentication relates only to whether the documents originated from [a certain source];
it is not synonymous to vouching for the accuracy of the information contained in those

1

The cases Northview cites in its opening brief are: United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 604
(1984); United States v. Lawrence, 934 F.2d 868 (7th Cir. 1991); and United States v. Brown,
688 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir. 1982).
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

records.” U.S. v. Brown , 688 F.2d 1112, 1116 (7th Cir. 1982). Northview’s citation of
these cases begs the question: does Northview want the Court to judicially notice certain
facts, or does it want the Court to find the documents are “self-authenticating” because
they were produced by Defendants or filed with the Secretary of State? The Court
declines to guess. Instead, the Court denies Northview’s request for judicial notice.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Northview Christian Church, Inc.’s Request for

Judicial Notice (Dkt. 83) is DENIED.

DATED: April 21, 2011

Honorable B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U. S. District Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3