Hearsay Statements

Site Admin
Posts: 11757
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:15 am

Hearsay Statements

Postby Administrator » Mon Sep 29, 2014 11:12 pm

Garrett v. Trans Union, L.L.C.
Slip Copy, 2006 WL 2850499
September 29, 2006

b. Inadmissable Hearsay

*6 Citifinancial claims that portions of Plaintiff's affidavit contain inadmissible hearsay and such portions should be stricken from the record. Specifically, Citifinancial claims the following statements are inadmissable because they qualify as “statements” which are either oral or written assertions offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted:

22. When I applied for financing at McHugh Jeep at Zanesville Chevrolet I learned that there was an unpaid account being reported by Citifinancial.

23. One of the dealers called me at home to ask why I had a mortgage at a different address. He said I owed money on a mortgage to Citifinancial and I couldn't get financing for a car.


31. I was denied both the car loan and a mortgage. I was told that my credit report showed I still owed money to Citifinancial.


Defendants correctly point out that this Court should not consider hearsay on a motion for summary judgment. Wiley v. U.S., 20 F.3d 222, 226 (6th Cir.1994) (“Hearsay evidence cannot be considered on a motion for summary judgment.”). Plaintiff, however, asserts that these statements were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to show his then existing state of mind and motive, and thus are hearsay exceptions pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 803(3). The Court agrees with Defendant Citifinancial that these statements cannot be utilized by Plaintiff to prove that he was denied credit based upon the entry from Citifinancial. The statements can, however, be considered by the Court to show Plaintiff's then existing state of mind and motive. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants' request to strike paragraphs 22, 23 and 31 of Plaintiff's affidavit from the record.


Cruz v. MRC Receivables, Corp., ___ F. Supp. 2d. ___, 2008 WL 2627143,
**2-4 (N.D. Cal. July 3, 2008) (sustaining hearsay objections to
credit reports and consumer's declaration, and ordering portions of
declaration stricken); see also Philbin v. Trans Union Corp., 101 F.3d
957, 961 nn. 1-2 (3d Cir. 1996) (excluding hearsay statements from
credit grantors concerning alleged reasons for credit denials); Baker
v. Capital One Bank, 2006 WL 173669, *5 (D. Ariz. Jan. 24, 2006)
(excluding credit reports).
David A. Szwak
Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak, LLC
416 Travis Street, Suite 1404, Mid South Tower
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
318-424-1400 / Fax 221-6555
President, Bossier Little League
Chairman, Consumer Protection Section, Louisiana State Bar Association

Return to “Evidentiary Issues in FCRA Cases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests