Sylvania Electric Products v. Flanagan
352 F.2d 1005 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To prove the contents of a material writing, the original must be produced unless the proponent demonstrates to the court that the original is unavailable through no serious fault of their own and that a reasonable and diligent search for it was unsuccessful.
Facts:
- Sylvania Electric Products, Inc. hired a general contractor to build a parking lot, which required the removal of a hill.
- The general contractor's agreement did not include hauling away the excavated material.
- Paul L. Flanagan, a trucker, alleged he entered into an oral agreement with Sylvania on May 27, 1963, to haul away the material at a rate of $13 per truck per hour.
- Flanagan performed the hauling work from late May to early July 1963, using his own and rented trucks.
- During the job, daily tally sheets were created at the worksite to record the number of trucks used and the hours each one worked.
- A dispute over the work and payment arose between Flanagan and Sylvania in June 1963, at a time when Flanagan still possessed the tally sheets.
- After the job, Flanagan billed Sylvania for 1932.5 truck hours, totaling over $25,000.
- Sylvania refused to pay the bill.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul L. Flanagan (plaintiff) sued Sylvania Electric Products, Inc. (defendant) for breach of contract in Massachusetts Superior Court, a state trial court.
- The defendant removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, a federal trial court, based on diversity of citizenship.
- During the trial, the court admitted plaintiff's summaries and invoices into evidence over the defendant's objection that this violated the best evidence rule.
- A jury found for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, and the district court entered judgment on the verdict.
- Sylvania (appellant) appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, with Flanagan as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is secondary evidence of a writing's contents, such as summaries and invoices, admissible to prove a claim when the proponent has not adequately demonstrated that the original writings are unavailable after conducting a diligent search?
Opinions:
Majority - McEntee, Circuit Judge
No. Secondary evidence is not admissible to prove the contents of a writing unless the proponent first meets the burden of showing that the original writing is unavailable. The best evidence rule requires that to prove the terms of a material writing, the original must be produced. An exception exists if the original is shown to be unavailable for a reason other than the proponent's serious fault, but this requires demonstrating that a reasonable and diligent search was made for the original without success. In this case, Flanagan, the proponent, failed to meet this burden. He testified that he knew he had some of the original tally sheets at home but never produced them, and he offered little to no evidence that a diligent search was conducted for the others. The court emphasized that a stricter standard of proof is required when, as here, the missing original writings are the 'very foundation of the claim.' Furthermore, the trial judge erred by not making the necessary preliminary findings that the originals were unavailable and that a reasonable search had been conducted before admitting the secondary evidence.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the foundational principles of the best evidence rule, emphasizing the proponent's strict burden to prove the unavailability of original documents. It clarifies that a mere claim of loss is insufficient; the proponent must actively demonstrate a 'reasonable and diligent search.' The court's distinction between collateral and foundational documents establishes a sliding scale for the rigor of this inquiry, requiring a more stringent showing when the document is central to the claim. This holding serves as a critical reminder to litigants of the importance of preserving primary evidence and the procedural necessity for trial judges to make preliminary findings before admitting secondary evidence.
