Kent Christensen, et al. v. Leann Renee Galliway, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted defendants’ motion in limine to exclude Roberta Christensen’s written declaration from trial. The court held that the declaration did not satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 807 because it lacked sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness and was not more probative than other evidence obtainable through reasonable efforts, particularly given plaintiffs’ failure to preserve Roberta’s testimony through available depositions.

Holdings

1. The declaration did not have sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness because Roberta was an interested witness, the declaration was prepared for litigation, it was not subject to meaningful cross-examination, and it contained multiple levels of hearsay.
2. The declaration was not more probative than other evidence obtainable through reasonable efforts, particularly because the plaintiffs had two opportunities to preserve Roberta's testimony in admissible form and failed to use either opportunity.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Roberta Christensen's written declaration was admissible under the residual hearsay exception in Federal Rule of Evidence 807.
2. Whether the declaration had sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness and was more probative on the relevant points than other evidence obtainable through reasonable efforts.

Disposition

other