Corporate Officers Presumed to Have Personal Knowledge

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

Corporate Officers Presumed to Have Personal Knowledge

Postby Administrator » Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:24 am

Corporate Officers Presumed to Have Personal Knowledge

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 56(e) precludes a witness from testifying to matters he is incapable of giving reliable statements about. Witnesses must make statements based on their knowledge and “statements made on information and belief” are precluded. Reddy v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 137 F.Supp.2d 948, 956 (S.D.Ohio 2000). There is a presumption that corporate officers have personal knowledge of acts of their corporation. Moore's Federal Practice § 56.14[1][c] (3d ed 1999).


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

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

Re: Corporate Officers Presumed to Have Personal Knowledge

Postby Administrator » Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:24 am

Hardin v. Reliance Trust Co.,
Slip Copy, 2006 WL 2850457, N.D.Ohio, September 29, 2006 (No. 1:04 CV 2079.)

U.S. v. ITT Industries, Inc.,
343 F.Supp.2d 1322, 26 ITRD 1977, CIT, July 08, 2004 (SLIP OP. 04-81.)
[While Gill is presumed to have personal knowledge of the acts of his corporation, Jabsco UK, see FDIC v. Patel, 46 F.3d 482, 484 (5th Cir.1995) (finding that a former bank employee and bank loan officer had sufficient personal knowledge of bank procedures and computer record keeping information that their affidavits were admissible under the business records exception and admissible as proper summary judgment evidence); 11 Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 56.14(1)(c) (stating that “corporate officers are presumed to have personal knowledge of acts of their corporation” ), that presumption does not extend to the acts and knowledge of another company, SFK. See id. Jabsco's affidavit therefore contains testimony that goes beyond the personal knowledge of...]

Credentials Plus, LLC v. Calderone,
230 F.Supp.2d 890, N.D.Ind., November 07, 2002 (No. 3:01-CV-0602 CAN.)

Reddy v. Good Samaritan Hosp. & Health Ctr.,
137 F.Supp.2d 948, 2001-1 Trade Cases P 73,276, S.D.Ohio, September 19, 2000 (No. C-3-90-197.) [In the same manner, corporate officers are presumed to have personal knowledge of acts of their corporation.” “Personal knowledge may also flow logically from the context of the affidavit.” Id. However, statements made “on information and belief...]
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: No registered users and 5 guests