Gary Kurtz v. Allstate Insurance Company

MEMORANDUM

The district court erred in ruling that the spreadsheets included in the Kurtz declaration were inadmissible under Rule 1006 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The spreadsheets did not seek to prove the “contents” of underlying receipts but rather to establish the fact of damages; therefore, Rule 1002, to which Rule 1006 operates as an exception, was not applicable. See United States v. Bennett, 363 F.3d 947, 953 (9th Cir.2004) (citing Fed. R.Evid. 1002 Advisory Committee’s note); see also United States v. Gonzales-Benitez, 537 F.2d 1051, 1053-54 (9th Cir.1976). Furthermore, because Kurtz had firsthand knowledge of the expenditures and actions to which he testified, his declaration was sufficient to demonstrate such expenditures and the submission of claims to Allstate for purposes of summary judgment, even though his declaration was uncorroborated. United States v. Shumway, 199 F.3d 1093, 1103-04 (9th Cir.1999). In addition, the district court erred in determining that the parties’ statement of undisputed facts constituted an admission that they had resolved all claims relating to personal property losses associated with the water damage. Taking the facts in the light…