Tongil Company, Ltd. v. The Vessel "Hyundai Innovator", and Hyundai Merchant Marine Corporation

Hyundai appeals a judgment awarding Tongil $90,606.66 for damage to its equipment, which Hyundai transported to Korea. At the bench trial, Tongil put on its case without live witnesses. Instead, it used two declarations to authenticate various business records. Hyundai objected to the admission of most of the business records as inadmissible hearsay. Hyundai also objected to the two declarations used to authenticate the business records as hearsay. The district court overruled these objections. We review the decision to admit business records as evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Catabran, 836 F.2d 453, 456 (9th Cir.1988).

Fed.R.Evid. 803(6) spells out an exception to the hearsay rule for business records. “The proponent of the business records must satisfy the foundational requirements of the business records exception.” Catabran, 836 F.2d at 457 . Tongil argues that it may satisfy Rule 803(6)’s foundational requirements at trial with hearsay declarations. We disagree.

Rule 803(6) explicitly provides that the foundational requirements must be “shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness.” Tongil has cited no authority, and we. have found…