State Office Systems, Inc. v. Olivetti Corp. of America, 83-1998
| Decision Date | 17 May 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-1998,83-1998 |
| Citation | 762 F.2d 843 |
| Parties | 41 UCC Rep.Serv. 1309, 18 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 727 STATE OFFICE SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OLIVETTI CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
R. Pete Smith and Mark S. Gunnison of McDowell, Rice & Smith, Chartered, Kansas City, Kan., for defendant-appellant.
Murray F. Hardesty of Hardesty & Puckett-Chartered, Topeka, Kan., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before McKAY, LOGAN and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a), Tenth Circuit R. 10(e). The cause is therefore submitted without oral argument.
The issue in this case is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion for a new trial.
Appellee State Office Systems (SOS) was an agent-dealer for appellant Olivetti. In 1975, Olivetti introduced a new line of mini-computers called the A-5, which SOS purchased for resale. SOS brought this suit against Olivetti for breach of warranty, breach of contract, and fraud, alleging that the A-5 was defective. Olivetti counterclaimed for damages against SOS for the purchase price of some of the A-5's sold to SOS for which SOS had not fully paid. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Olivetti on the counterclaim and the fraud claim, and in favor of SOS on the breach of contract and express warranty claims in the sum of $280,000.
Olivetti moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The trial judge denied both motions. Olivetti appeals, claiming that the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting Exhibit 360, a damage chart, and in submitting the issue of consequential damages to the jury. Olivetti also claims that a new trial should have been granted because of the excessiveness of the verdict.
Appellant claims that the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting appellee's Exhibit 360, a purported damage summary. Appellant claims that SOS failed to lay an adequate foundation for this exhibit, and that the figures in the chart are not supported by the evidence.
The determination of the admissibility of exhibits is committed to the discretion of the trial court, and should not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Rosenberg v. Collins, 624 F.2d 659, 665 (5th Cir.1980); C & C Products, Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 512 F.2d 1375, 1378 (5th Cir.1975). Exhibit 360 purports to be a summary of the damages suffered by SOS, including both actual damage and loss of future profits. As such, it is a combination of a summary of voluminous business records, admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 1006 and 803(6), and a projection of future profits, admissible as opinion testimony under Rule 701 or 702. The court did not indicate the rule of evidence under which it admitted the summary, and the appellant did not request that it do so.
Rule 1006 clearly permits the use of a summary of voluminous business records. However, the summary is admissible only if all of the records from which it is drawn are otherwise admissible. Ford Motor Co. v. Auto Supply Co., Inc., 661 F.2d 1171, 1175 (8th Cir.1981); United States v. Johnson, 594 F.2d 1253 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 964, 100 S.Ct. 451, 62 L.Ed.2d 376 (1979). There is evidence in the record to lay a foundation for the summary of actual losses as a compilation of business records admissible under Rule 1006. Mr. Springer, the president and treasurer of SOS, testified that he had helped prepare the summary, and that the figures represented a summary of information obtained from the company's business records. The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Mr. Springer's testimony satisfied the foundational requirement of proving that the summary of actual damages was based on business records otherwise admissible under Rule 803(6), the business records exception to the hearsay rule.
The projections of future lost profits contained in the summary are more troublesome. These projections are not legitimately admissible as summaries under Rule 1006, since they are interpretations of past data and projections of future events not a simple compilation of voluminous records. They are, however, admissible as opinion testimony. See Fed.R.Evid. 701, 702. The trial court did not expressly state the grounds on which it had admitted the portion of the summary related to future profits. However, given Mr. Springer's position as president and treasurer of the company, his lengthy experience in marketing and selling Olivetti computers in Kansas, and his personal knowledge of SOS operations, sales, and profits, he qualified as a witness able to render an opinion concerning SOS's lost future profits. See Teen-Ed, Inc. v. Kimball International, Inc., 620 F.2d 399, 402-04 (3d Cir.1980). The trial court's decision to allow Springer to testify on this matter of opinion and the admission of his estimate of future profits cannot be reversed as an abuse of discretion.
While it would have been preferable to have the summary of business records displayed separately from the opinion as to future profits to avoid misleading of the jury, the appellant did not make this objection to the trial court. Rather, it objected solely to the lack of foundation for the exhibit and to the lack of support for the figures on the display. As discussed, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding adequate foundation for the estimate of future profits. We find that, in light of the testimony and cross-examination, which made clear to the jury that the future profits were an opinion as to future profitability rather than something based on concrete business records, the admission of the evidence of lost profits as part of the damage summary rather than as a separate exhibit does not constitute an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.
Appellant objects to the damage exhibit, particularly the estimate of future profits, on the ground that the figures are not supported by the underlying evidence. It is within the discretion of the trial court to determine whether there is enough evidence to support the exhibit to justify letting it go to the jury. Rosenberg, 624 F.2d at 665. The record supports the trial court's conclusion in this regard. Clearly, a summary of business records should not be admitted if it mischaracterizes or inaccurately reflects the documents it purports to summarize. However, appellants' objections as to lack of supporting evidence relate primarily to the section dealing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colo. Interstate Gas v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co.
...record. The weight to be accorded Dr. Rhodes' testimony was consequently a question for the jury. State Office Systems, Inc. v. Olivetti Corp. of America, 762 F.2d 843, 846 (10th Cir.1985); Brown v. McGraw-Edison Co., 736 F.2d 609, 616 (10th Cir.1984). The jury believed Dr. Rhodes' testimon......
-
Griddine v. GP1 KS-Sb, Inc.
...948 F.2d at 1525). 67. Daniel v. Ben E. Keith Co., 97 F.3d 1329, 1335 (10th Cir. 1996); see also State Office Sys., Inc. v. Olivetti Corp. of Am., 762 F.2d 843, 846 (10th Cir. 1985) ("[A] summary of business records should not be admitted if it mischaracterizes or inaccurately reflects the ......
-
U.S. v. Pelullo
...896 F.2d 1035, 1045 (7th Cir.1990); United States v. Meyers, 847 F.2d 1408, 1412 (9th Cir.1988); State Office Systems, Inc. v. Olivetti Corp. of Am., 762 F.2d 843, 845 (10th Cir.1985); Hackett v. Housing Auth. of San Antonio, 750 F.2d 1308, 1312 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 850, 106 S......
-
In re Ward
...(7th Cir.1992); Roboserve, Ltd. v. Tom's Foods, Inc., 940 F.2d 1441, 1450-52 (11th Cir.1991); State Office Sys., Inc. v. Olivetti Corp. of America, 762 F.2d 843, 846-47 (10th Cir.1985); Litman v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 739 F.2d 1549, 1559 (11th Cir.1984) cert. denied, 484 U.S. 10......
-
Attacking the Opposing Expert
...than pedagogical devices designed to simplify and clarify other evidence in the case. CASES State Office Sys. v. Olivetti Corp. of Am ., 762 F.2d 843, 845 (10th Cir. 1985) was an action against a computer manufacturer for breach of contract seeking lost profits. The exhibit introduced, purp......
-
Table of Cases
...State of Connecticut v. Asherman , 193 Conn. 695, 478 A. 2d 227 (S. Ct. Conn. 1964), §603.4.1 State Office Sys. v. Olivetti Corp. of Am. , 762 F.2d 843, 845 (l0th Cir. 1985), §445 States v. Lourdes Hospital, 100 N.Y.2d 208, 792 N.E. 2d 151, 154 (2003), §532 State v. Alberico , 116 N. M. 156......
-
Other evidence rules
...examine all underlying records, but only that in-court examination would be an inconvenience. State O৽ce Sys. v. Olivetti Corp. of Amer. , 762 F.2d 843 (10th Cir. 1985). A summary is admissible under Rule 1006 only if there is record evidence showing that the summarized documents are themse......
-
Other Evidence Rules
...all underlying records, but only that in-court examination would be an inconvenience. State Office Sys. v. Olivetti Corp. of Amer. , 762 F.2d 843 (10th Cir. 1985). A summary is admissible under Rule 1006 only if there is record evidence showing that the summarized documents are themselves o......