U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust, Plaintiff, Appellee,
JULIA L. JONES, Defendant, Appellant.
FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MAINE, [Hon. John A. Woodcock, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
A. Cox for appellant.
Matthew A. Fitzgerald, with whom Ashley P. Peterson was on
brief, for appellee.
Michael A.F. Johnson and Dirk C. Phillips on brief for
Federal Housing Finance Agency, amicus curiae.
Rossman, Geoff Walsh, J.L. Pottenger, Jr., and Jeffrey Gentes
on brief for National Consumer Law Center and Jerome N. Frank
Legal Services Organization, amici curiae.
D'Alessandro and Jonathan E. Selkowitz on brief for Pine
Tree Legal Assistance, Inc., amicus curiae.
Lynch, Circuit Judge, Souter, Associate Justice, [*] and Stahl, Circuit
SOUTER, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.
diversity case, appellee U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., sued
appellant Julia Jones for breach of contract and breach of
promissory note, among other claims, after Jones stopped
making payments due to U.S. Bank on her mortgage loan. At
trial, U.S. Bank sought to establish the total amount owed on
the loan account by introducing a computer printout, marked
as Exhibit 8, that contained an account summary and a list of
transactions related to the loan. The District Court admitted
Exhibit 8 into evidence and relied on it in granting judgment
to U.S. Bank in the amount of $226, 458.28. We affirm.
argues on appeal that admitting Exhibit 8 violated the
Federal Rules of Evidence. "We review the district
court's interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence
de novo, but its application of those Rules for
abuse of discretion." Bradley v. Sugarbaker,
891 F.3d 29, 33 (1st Cir. 2018). "[T]his court will not
substitute its judgment" in a discretionary evidentiary
ruling "for that of the district court unless left with
a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed
a clear error of judgment." Clukey v. Town of
Camden, 894 F.3d 25, 34 (1st Cir. 2018) (quoting
Paolino v. JF Realty, LLC, 830 F.3d 8, 13 (1st Cir.
2016) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
803(6), known as the business records exception, authorizes
the admission of certain documents under an exception to the
usual prohibition against the admission of hearsay
statements, that is, statements by an out-of-court declarant
offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter
asserted. Fed.R.Evid. 801(c), 802. Rule 803(6) provides that
"[a] record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or
diagnosis" is "not excluded by the rule against
"(A) the record was made at or near the time by-or from
information transmitted by-someone ...