Ashok Arora v. Midland Credit Management, et al.

Respondents moved for summary judgment on Petitioner’s claims. Respondents supported some of their factual assertions regarding a debt account with declarations. The declarations were prepared specifically for this lawsuit. The declarations were signed by Respondents’ custodian of records who asserted that her statements were based on her review of Respondents’ business records. Respondents did not produce the business records that the custodian of records had supposedly reviewed. Petitioner disputed those facts. The district court accepted Respondent’s declarations under the Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) and 803(7) exceptions to hearsay for business records, relied on the facts asserted therein, and granted Respondents a summary judgment on Petitioner’s claim. The Seventh circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The Seventh circuit ruling is in conflict with this Court’s holding that “The affidavits do not qualify as traditional official or business records.” MelendezDiaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 321 (2009). It is also in conflict with the Tenth circuit ruling in United States v. Harper, 118 F.4th 1288 (10th Cir. 2024) involving a similar situation. The question presented is: Whether the district court erred or abused its discretion when, at summary judgment, it accepted declarations asserting hearsay facts—supposedly derived from business records—under the Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) and 803(7) exceptions for business records, even though the business records from which the declarant claimed to have derived those facts were never produced and not in evidence.