RPM Ecosystems Ithaca, LLC v. Lovelace Farms, Inc. et al

Filing 125

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's objections to exhibits [Doc. # 108 ] are overruled.. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 6/8/15. (KKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RPM ECOSYSTEMS ITHACA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOVELACE FARMS, INC., et al,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:09-CV-1512 (CEJ)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s objections to exhibits. [Doc.
#108]. Defendants have filed a response and supplemental declaration. [Doc.
#118].
On March 30, 2015, defendants filed their memorandum in opposition to
plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. Their memorandum was supported
by 33 exhibits and the declaration of counsel Jessica M. Mendez. [Doc. #100].
Plaintiff argues that the majority of the exhibits should be excluded.1
Plaintiff argues that exhibits submitted in support of or opposition to
summary judgment must be properly authenticated, and that a party’s outside
counsel cannot properly authenticate a client’s documents. This position is
consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 as it existed before 2010. See Stuart v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 217 F.3d 621, 636 (8th Cir. 2000) (“To be considered on summary

1

Exhibits 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17-22, 24, 26, 27, and 29-32 are invoices from
defendants’ business records which were produced in response to plaintiff’s
discovery requests. Exhibit 3 is an email from defendants’ corporate representative
Kim Young to plaintiff’s P.J. Marshall. Exhibit 4 is a memorandum drafted by Young
to defendants’ employees. Exhibit 13 is a list of defendants’ 2007 customer
transactions.

judgment, documents must be authenticated by and attached to an affidavit made
on personal knowledge setting forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence
or a deposition that meets the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Documents
which do not meet those requirements cannot be considered.”) However, Rule 56
was amended in 2010. Under amended Rule 56(c), a party “may object that the
material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would
be admissible in evidence.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(2) (emphasis added). When such an
objection is made, the burden is on the proponent of the evidence to show that the
material is admissible as presented or to explain the admissible form that is
anticipated. Gannon Int’l, Ltd. v. Blocker, 684 F.3d 785, 793 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing
Rule 56 advisory committee’s note). “[T]he standard is not whether the evidence at
the summary judgment stage would be admissible at trial — it is whether it could
be presented at trial in an admissible form.” Id. (citing Rule 56(c)(2)).
In response to plaintiff’s objection, defendants submit the declaration of
corporate representative Kimberly Young. Def. Ex. A [Doc. #118-1]. Ms. Young’s
declaration adequately establishes that the challenged evidence can be presented
at trial in an admissible form.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s objections to exhibits [Doc. #108]
are overruled.

CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 8th day of June, 2015.

2