Asphalt Trader Limited v. Beall et al
Filing
111
MEMORANDUM DECISION And Order Overruling Defendant Beall's Objection To Evidence Submitted By Plaintiff In Support Of Its Motion ForSummary Judgment. Signed by Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. on 10/07/2019. (nl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
ASPHALT TRADER LIMITED,
Plaintiff
vs.
ROBERT SCOTT BEALL and TARYN
CAPITAL ENERGY, L.L.C.,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT
BEALL'S OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE
SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF IN
SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case No. 1:17-cv-00015-HCN
Defendants
Howard C. Nielson, Jr.
United States District Judge
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and DUCivR 7-l(b)(l)(B), Defendant Robert Scott Beall
("Beall") objected to the following evidence submitted by Plaintiff Asphalt Trader Limited
("Asphalt") in support of its motion for summary judgment:
(1) Asphalt's "Fr~udulent Transfer Referen~e Sheet," attached as pa~ of Exhibit E in
Asphalt's Appendix in support of its motion for summary judgment.
(2) Asphalt's "Points of Claim," attached as Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Elias Gotsis and
included as Exhibit A-2 in Asphalt's Appendix in support of its motion for summary
judgment.
(3) Asphalt's "Reasons for and Forming Part of Final Award," attached as Exhibit 3 to the
Declaration of Elias Gotsis and included as Exhibit A-3 in Asphalt's Appendix in support
of its motion for summary judgment.
For the reasons detailed herein, the Court overrules Defendant Beall's objections.
The Fraudulent Transfer Summary Sheet
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006,
[a] proponent may use a summary, chart, or calculation to prove the content of
voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs that cannot be conveniently
examined in court. The proponent must make the originals or duplicates available
for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at a reasonable time and
place. And the court may order the proponent to produce them in court.
"[T]he admission of summaries under Rule 1006 is within the sound discretion of the trial court."
US. v. Thompson, 518 F.3d 832, 858 (10th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Plaintiffs "Fraudulent
Transfer Reference Sheet" (hereinafter "summary sheet") is admissible under this rule.
In United States v. Thompson, a fraud case, the Tenth Circuit held that the district court
did not err in admitting summary charts because "[t]he government's evidence was incredibly
voluminous, and it would have been incomprehensible to the jury without summarization." 518
F.3d 832, 859 (10th Cir. 2008). Each item "listed on the summaries was supported by at least one
piece of evidence, such as a check, deposit slip, bank record, or wire transfer receipt ... crossreferencing to each specific exhibit number." Id. In United States v. Schuler, the Tenth Circuit
again found the use of summary exhibits proper given the voluminous nature of the financial
records, the availability of the summaries to both parties, and the fact that the underlying records
were admissible and admitted into evidence. 458 F.3d 1148, 1154 (10th Cir. 2006). 1
1
See also Gill v. Arab Bank, PLC, 893 F. Supp. 2d 523, 536 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (admitting
under Rule 1006 bank records charts that were "summaries of contents of voluminous data" and
would "streamline the presentation of []data to the jury, saving the jury time and avoiding
unnecessary confusion"; "[b]ecause the underlying data to [the] summary charts was produced
and is available ... no prejudice is suffered"); US. v. Wainright, 351 F.3d 816, 821 (8th Cir.
2003) (admitting bank record summaries under Rule 1006 given "the underlying evidence [was]
available to both parties"); Murphy v. City of Tulsa, 2018 WL 340043 at *3 (N.D. Okla. 2018)
("Rule 1006 is often utilized for the purposes of trial in order to summarize voluminous
documents for the convenience of the jury.").
2
Here, Plaintiffs summary sheet condenses admissible bank records produced by
Defendants in discovery and submitted with Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. As in
Thompson, the Court finds the Plaintiff's evidence would be "incredibly voluminous" and
largely "incomprehensible" in its absence. Plaintiff's submission summarizes approximately one
thousand transactions spanning multiple bank accounts. These submissions are evidenced by
approximately three hundred and seventeen pages of Defendant Taryn's financial records. The
summary sheet contains a "Bates Reference" column directing the Court to the corresponding
bank statement page for each of the allegedly fraudulent transfers that it lists. See Thompson, 518
F.3d at 859. In addition, the financial records were produced by Defendants during discovery and
authenticated by Defendant Beall at his deposition. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 77-4 at 67:18-68:2;
132:17-23; see also Schuler, 458 F.3d at 1154.
To the extent Defendant Beall objects to the admission of the "Fraudulent Transfer
Reference Sheet" on the grounds that Plaintiff must produce evidence sufficient to support a
finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is, the court notes that the summary sheet
merely summarizes facts allegedly contained in bank records and other financial documents that
are evidence in this case. The summary sheet is not itself evidence or proof of any fact. Such
charts or summaries are used only as a matter of convenience and to the extent that they are not,
in truth, accurate summaries of facts or figures shown by the evidence, they will be disregarded.
Thompson, 518 F.3d at 859.
Due to the large number of allegedly fraudulent transfers, the voluminous documentation
of these transfers, and the likely difficulty of analyzing this documentation absent the summary
sheet, the Court finds interests of judicial economy justify considering the summary sheet under
Rule 1006.
3
The Points of Claim and Reasons for and Forming Part of Final Award
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, courts may take judicial notice of adjudicative facts
that are not in reasonable dispute. See United States v. A & R Productions, 2014 WL 12787914
(D. N.M. 2014). Here the arbitration proceedings, filings, and award are all matters of public
record. Cf Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244, 1264 n.24 (10th Cir. 2006) (explaining that judicially
noticed facts typically consist of matters of public record). Indeed, the arbitration award has been
confirmed by this court. Memorandum Decision, Dkt. No. 16, Asphalt Trader Ltd. v. Taryn
Capital Energy, No. 1: 16-cv-54 (D. Utah 2016). And arbitration proceedings are plainly a proper
subject of judicial notice. See, e.g., Stacks v. Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc., 27 F.3d 1316,
1326 n.3 (8th Cir. 1994); Yerkovich v. MCA Inc., 11 F. Supp. 2d. 1167, 1169 n.2 (C.D. Cal.
1997). As the Seventh Circuit has explained, "decisions of[] arbitrators" are the '" arbitral
equivalents' of judicial decisions, of which, of course, a court can take judicial notice."
Consolidation Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers ofAmerica, 213 F.3d 404, 407 (7th Cir. 2000).
Although the court will take judicial notice of the arbitration proceedings and award, it
does not follow that the arbitration findings-let alone allegations made by Plaintiff in the
arbitration proceedings-are conclusive or binding in this litigation. When a court takes judicial
notice of the proceedings of another tribunal, it generally takes notice of the fact that they
happened-not the truth of any conclusions drawn by the other tribunal. See, e.g., Roth v.
Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 509 (2d Cir. 2007); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rotches Pork Packers, Inc.,
969 F.2d 1384, 1388 (2d Cir. 1992). And while Plaintiff was a party to the arbitration
proceedings between Plaintiff and Defendant Taryn, Defendant Beall was not. See Compl.
if 9.
And regardless of whether Beall could properly be viewed as in privity with Taryn, Utah courts
have generally declined to grant preclusive effect to arbitration decisions. See Buckner v.
4
Kennard, 99 P.3d 842, 850 (Utah 2004); see also Semtek Intern. Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., .
531U.S.497, 508-09 (2001) (concluding that federal courts sitting in diversity cases should
apply the claim preclusion rules of the State in which the federal court sits); Matsanto
Commercial Corp. v. Applebee 's Inter., Inc., 245 F.3d 1203, 1208 (10th Cir. 2001) (extending
Semtek to issue preclusion).
For the foregoing reasons, the court overrules Defendant Beale's objections. IT IS SO
ORDERED.
DATED this 7th day of October, 2019.
Howard C. Nielson, Jr.
United States District Judge
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?