foreign business records

06:33 Oct 25, 2018 

J'ai fait cette demande parce que vous avez déjà cité de larges extraits de votre texte, mais pas grave : ce n'est plus d'actualité de toute manière.

06:30 Oct 25, 2018 

Je suis désolée ph-b, mais dû à la nature du document ne veux pas soumettre plus de texte source. C'est un document très sensible

20:55 Oct 24, 2018 

These new rules were created in 2000. Here is the official explanation (to illustrate what I said in a previous comment about the reason there are different rules for foreign vs. domestic business records):

"Committee Notes on Rules—2000 Amendment
The amendment adds two new paragraphs to the rule on self-authentication. It sets forth a procedure by which parties can authenticate certain records of regularly conducted activity, other than through the testimony of a foundation witness. See the amendment to Rule 803(6). 18 U.S.C. §3505 currently provides a means for certifying foreign records of regularly conducted activity in criminal cases, and this amendment is intended to establish a similar procedure for domestic records, and for foreign records offered in civil cases."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803

20:53 Oct 24, 2018 

Ph-b, you're actually right, more or less: the location that matters is where the records custodian is habitually located (lives/works). Usually the custodian for records of an American business is in America, while the custodian for the records of a foreign business is wherever that business is.

The reason foreign business records are subject to a slightly different evidentiary rule than domestic business records is because the usual process for authenticating business records (i.e., making the showing that they meet XYZ criteria) involves having the records custodian testify in person, either in court or under courtroom-like conditions via video, etc.

But that process is expensive and inconvenient when the custodian is in a foreign country. So, our rules allow the custodian in such cases to provide a certified writing stating that the records meet XYZ criteria, instead of testifying in person.

In a case where, say, a French company had a New York office, and the NY records custodian worked in the NY office, and those records were the ones at issue, a court in New York would follow the usual domestic rule (testimony in person). But that's unusual.

20:12 Oct 24, 2018 

Eliza, merci pour vos explications - les choses sont claires et je ne vois pas l'intérêt de maintenir ma réponse - même avec un niveau NC3. Germaine, la traduction d'Eliza est en fait la première phrase de l'explication de sa réponse. PS: Eliza, juste une précision : je ne vois pas dans les textes cités que c'est la sté qui est étrangère et non pas les documents. La déf. dit : "record of regularly conducted activity” means a memorandum (etc.) maintained in a foreign country." Il serait donc sous-entendu que la sté est étrangère ?

20:05 Oct 24, 2018 

Merci pour vos explications. Je comprends bien la question du ouï-dire et des règles d’admission en preuve. Maintenant, je vois aussi le sens que vous donnez à "showing" (qui n’est pas ressorti dans mes recherches). Reste la rédaction et... vous ne proposez rien! Que pensez-vous de:

documents d’entreprises étrangères disponibles lors d’une procédure d’admission en preuve comparable à celle appliquée aux preuves documentaires d’entreprises amércaines... ?
ou
documents d’entreprises étrangères disponibles à la suite d’une procédure comparable à celle s’appliquant aux preuves documentaires d’entreprises amércaines... ?

19:19 Oct 24, 2018 

I already explained this below in my comment entitled, "PS re 'available on showing' - WRONG." The explanation is there, but let me rephrase, or re-explain:

1. A certain evidentiary showing is required in order for US business records to be admissible (i.e., shown to the jury at trial). In other words, certain facts must be shown before the judge will admit those records at trial. If you cannot show those facts, you can't "get the evidence in" (it won't be admitted, so the jury will never see it).

2. A certain evidentiary showing is required in order for the records of foreign businesses to be admissible. That showing is SIMILAR TO the evidentiary showing required for the admission of US business records. They're not covered by the same rule (as you can see from the title of 18 USC 3505, that rule is specific to foreign business records), but the rules that cover them are similar to each other. In other words, both rules have similar requirements in terms of what evidence must be shown in order for the evidence to be admissible.

19:10 Oct 24, 2018 

Ph-b and Germaine, please see my earlier comment -- "showing" has NOTHING to do with "consultation." Please remember I am a practicing lawyer in the US. I actually use the rules of evidence on a regular basis. I know what this word means, and it's not what you think.

Showing is a legal term: "an act or instance of establishing through evidence and argument" https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/showing.html

As for the certification, it is the evidence used to make the necessary showing. It is a written document, prepared by the lawyer after speaking with the records custodian, and then reviewed and signed by the records custodian. (Note, Germaine, it's not a "certificate" but a "certification"). Again, a specific legal term (#2 here: https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/certification.html...

The lawyer files this certification with the court in order to make the showing (i.e., to show or to prove) that the business records in question fit the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3505, and therefore that these records can be presented to the jury.

Ph-b is correct that "records" is very broad, much broader than "registres," and that "documents" is likely the best translation

17:32 Oct 24, 2018 

Would you please illustrate your position with a translation or at least, the parsing you are considering? Pour le moment, il me semble que vous assimiler (amalgamate) "showing" et "certificate". Si c’était le cas, comment interprétez-vous "similar to"? Pour ma part, je comprends que ce que vous soulevez est contenu dans "must give intent of offer".

17:15 Oct 24, 2018 

J’hésitais sur le positionnement de "disponible pour consultation", mais au bout du compte, il me semble que les documents d’entreprises américaines disponibles pour consultation" sert de point de comparaison quant aux documents d’entreprises étrangères susceptibles d’être requis/soumis (obtenir à l’étranger des documents comparables à ceux auxquels on a accès aux E.-U.).

17:05 Oct 24, 2018 

Je comprends:
Authentification de documents privés
Registres d’entreprises étrangères comparables aux registres d’entreprises américaines disponibles pour consultation (un avis d’intention de soumettre les registres doit être remis)
Attestation du dépositaire des registres

En anglais, "records" a un sens beaucoup plus large que "registres". Dans ce sens, il serait peut-être préférable d’utiliser "Registres/documents", comme vous le suggérez, ou même simplement "documents".

Dans le contexte "business", je comprends:
- "records available on showing" comme les registres/documents qui peuvent être consultés en personne, sur demande, là où ils sont gardés, pendant les heures normales d’affaires;
- "domestic business records" comme les registres/documents d’entreprises américaines (le texte faisant référence à la réglementation des États-Unis). En principe, "domestic" se traduit par "national", mais "d’entreprises nationales" peut porter à interprétation/confusion dans ce contexte, tout comme "locales" d’ailleurs.

16:57 Oct 24, 2018 

Germaine, your comment to Ph-b's answer below is wrong. It has nothing to do with disponibilité pour consultation. The "showing" is the evidence that these records meet the requirements of 18 USC 3505, in other words, the records custodian (person in charge of these records at the foreign business) provides a written certification stating that the records were made at or near the time in question; they were kept in the course of regular business activity; etc. (see what must be stated in (a)(1) of the statute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3505). All the requirements set forth in section (a)(1) of the statute must be met, and the certification must say so, in order for the business records in question to be admissible evidence.

Attorneys must "show" that these conditions are met; they do so by providing a written certification from the person who knows the facts, namely the employee of the foreign business who is in charge of making and/or keeping these records. This required showing is similar to that required for admitting US business records (i.e. the attorney has to present a written certification from the records custodian that says essentially the same thing).

16:53 Oct 24, 2018 

In US law, the hearsay rule prevents litigants from using certain types of testimony or documents in litigation. In other words, those types of testimony and documents can't be presented to or considered by the jury.

The rules of evidence provide for a hearsay rule (defining what cannot be used) and a list of exceptions to the hearsay rule. Business records are an exception: you can use business records to prove that what is stated in those records is true.

The statute you're citing is part of the federal rules of evidence: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-II/chapter-2...

It says that certain foreign business records are admissible (can be considered by the jury) as an exception to the hearsay rule, if the conditions set forth in the statute you're citing are met. Those conditions are similar to the conditions under which US business records can be admitted under a hearsay exception (they require a similar showing, i.e. similar proof that the conditions are met, as US business records do).

16:34 Oct 24, 2018 

Possible d'avoir un peu plus de texte source ? Germaine et moi sommes d'accord sur le sens général en l'état, mais quand même qques points d'interrogation...