Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-1605, Section "R" (4).
October 18, 2004
ORDER AND REASONS
Defendant E.I. Du Pont de Nemours Co. moves the Court in limine to exclude plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's proposed Exhibit 552, a printout of a table from the website of the United States Census Bureau. For the following reasons, the Court denies DuPont's motion.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Exhibit 552 is a table of information compiled by the United States Census Bureau based on data gathered in 1997 regarding employment of persons with disabilities. According to the EEOC, it shows that some 733,000 persons who required an assistive device or wheelchair to ambulate were employed in 1997 in the United States. The exhibit has been printed from the internet website of the U.S. Census Bureau, and contains the internet domain address from which the image was printed and the date on which it was printed. The exhibit also clearly indicates that the source of the information is August-November 1997 data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.
II. DISCUSSION
DuPont argues that Exhibit 552 should be excluded for two reasons. First, DuPont argues that the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay, and that the exhibit has not been authenticated. Second, DuPont argues that Exhibit 552 is irrelevant and prejudicial. For the following reasons, the Court denies DuPont's motion in limine.
A. Admissibility
DuPont argues that Exhibit 552 is inadmissible hearsay and lacks proper authentication. The EEOC does not dispute that the exhibit is hearsay, but argues that it is excepted from the hearsay prohibition by Rule 803(17) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Court finds that it need not consider the application of Rule 803(17) because Exhibit 552 is excepted from the hearsay prohibition by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8).
Rule 803(17) excepts from the hearsay prohibition "[m]arket quotations, tabulations, lists, directories, or other published compilations, generally used and relied upon by the public or by persons in particular occupations." FED. R. EVID. 803(17).
Rule 803(8) excepts "[r]ecords, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency" from the hearsay rule, "unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness." FED. R. EVID. 803(8). The U.S. Census Bureau qualifies as a public agency. The table of information in exhibit 552 is a record of the activities of the agency — namely, the collection, organization, and reporting of census data to the public.
DuPont argues that a computer printout of information available on the Internet is not trustworthy as Rule 803(8) requires. The Court disagrees. Exhibit 552 contains official government information, and that it was printed from the Internet does not establish that the information lacks trustworthiness. "Public records and government documents are generally considered not to be subject to reasonable dispute," and "[t]his includes public records and government documents available from reliable sources on the Internet." In re Dingle, 270 F. Supp. 2d 968, 971 (W.D. Mich. 2003). The U.S. Census Bureau's website is once such reliable source. See Chapman v. San Francisco Newspaper Agency, No. C-01-02305 CRB, 2002 WL 31119944, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2002) (holding that a computer printout of a page from the United States Postal Service website came from a sufficiently reliable source to be an admissible public record under Rule 803(8)). But see St. Clair v. Johnny's Oyster Shrimp, Inc., 76 F. Supp. 2d 773, 774-75 (S.D. Tex. 1999) (holding that "voodoo information taken from the Internet" was insufficient to withstand motion to dismiss because "[n]o web-site is monitored for accuracy" and "this so-called Web provides no way of verifying the authenticity" of information plaintiff wished to rely on). The court concludes that, "in an age where so much information is calculated, stored and displayed on a computer, massive amounts of evidence would be inadmissible" if the Court were to accept DuPont's characterization of all information on the Internet as inherently unreliable. Chapman, 2002 WL 31119944, at *2. Thus, the Court finds that the circumstances do not indicate that Exhibit 552 lacks trustworthiness, and that the exhibit is admissible as a public record under Rule 803(8).
As for authentication, the Court finds that the EEOC has submitted evidence sufficient to authenticate the exhibit. Rule 901(a) states that the requirement of authentication "is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." FED. R. EVID. 901(a). The exhibit contains the internet domain address from which the table was printed, and the date on which it was printed. The Court has accessed the website using the domain address and has verified that the webpage printed exists at that location. The Court also notes that the webpage is maintained on a government website, and, according to Rule 902(5), "publications purporting to be issued by public authority" are self authenticating. The Court thus finds that the EEOC has provided evidence sufficient to authenticate the exhibit. See Chapman, 2002 WL 3119944, at *2; In re Polygraphex Systems, Inc., 275 B.R. 408, 418 n. 8 (Bankr. M.D. Fl. 2002).
B. Relevance and Prejudice
DuPont also objects that Exhibit 552 is irrelevant and prejudicial because the number of employed persons in the United State who use a wheelchair is not related to whether Laura Barrios is disabled or to whether her disability can be accommodated. DuPont also argues that the exhibit "does not prove that a wheelchair would have accommodate [sic] her with respect to crossing open-ditches, rough terrain and steep levees." The EEOC counters that the exhibit is relevant because it shows that employers of 733,000 employees who need assistive devices to ambulate consider those employees able to evacuate, with or without accommodation, which contradicts DuPont's claim that Ms. Barrios is a direct threat, as well as its claim that it has attempted to comply with the ADA in good faith. The Court finds that the relevance of the exhibit depends on the context in which it is offered, and will further consider the admissibility of the exhibit at that time.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies DuPont's motion in limine.