Legal Question in Credit and Debt Law in Pennsylvania

I don't know what you are trying to establish or what kind of case you are involved in so I cannot comment or offer too much advice.

You have an evidentiary question (not sure why this is taggged as a credit/collection issue). Evidence is governed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence found in the PA Code and statutes. There are precise ways to get evidence admitted. Assuming its relevant, properly authenticated and a foundation is established, duplicate copies are acceptable.

Sere the Business Records Act and the Evidentiary Rules in the PA Code - they are set forth below:

42 Pa.C.S.A. � 6109(a) Short title of section.--This section shall be known and may be cited as the �Uniform Photographic Copies of Business and Public Records as Evidence Act.�

(b) General rule.--If any business institution, member of a profession or calling, or any department or agency of government, in the regular course of business or activity, has kept or recorded any memorandum, writing, entry, print, representation, or combination thereof, of any act, transaction, occurrence or event, and in the regular course of business has caused any or all of the same to be recorded, copied or reproduced by any photographic, photostatic, microfilm, microcard, miniature photographic, or other process which accurately reproduces or forms a durable medium for so reproducing the original, the original may be destroyed, in the regular course of business, unless its preservation is required by law. Any such reproduction in order to comply with this section must accurately reproduce all lines and markings which appear on the original. Such reproduction, when satisfactorily identified, is as admissible in evidence as the original itself in any judicial or administrative proceeding, whether the original is in existence or not, and an enlargement or facsimile of such reproduction is likewise admissible in evidence if the original reproduction is in existence and available for inspection under direction of the tribunal. The introduction of a reproduced record, enlargement or facsimile does not preclude admission of the original.

Rule 1002. Requirement of Original.

To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules, by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court, or by statute.

Comment

Pa.R.E. 1002 differs from F.R.E. 1002 to eliminate the reference to Federal law and to make the Rule conform to Pennsylvania law. Pa.R.E. 1002 is consistent with Pennsylvania law.

This rule corresponds to the common law ��best evidence rule.�� See Warren v. Mosites Constr. Co., 253 Pa. Super. 395, 385 A.2d 397 (1978). The rationale for the rule was not expressed in Pennsylvania cases, but commentators have mentioned four reasons justifying the rule.

(1) The exact words of many documents, especially operative or dispositive documents, such as deeds, wills or contracts, are so important in determining a party�s rights accruing under those documents.

(2) Secondary evidence of the contents of documents, whether copies or testimony, is susceptible to inaccuracy.

(3) The rule inhibits fraud because it allows the parties to examine the original documents to detect alterations and erroneous testimony about the contents of the document.

(4) The appearance of the original may furnish information as to its authenticity.

5 Weinstein & Berger, Weinstein�s Evidence � 1002(2) (Sandra D. Katz rev. 1994).

The common law formulation of the rule provided that the rule was applicable when the terms of the document were ��material.�� The materiality requirement has not been eliminated, but is now dealt with in Pa.R.E. 1004(4). That rule provides that the original is not required when the writing, recording or photograph is not closely related to a controlling issue.

The case law has not been entirely clear as to when a party is trying ��to prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph.�� However, writings that are viewed as operative or dispositive have usually been considered to be subject to the operation of the rule. Such writings include deeds, see Gallagher v. London Assurance Corp., 149 Pa. 25, 24 A. 115 (1892), contracts, see In re Reuss� Estate, 422 Pa. 58, 220 A.2d 822 (1966), and attachments, see L.C.S. Colliery, Inc. v. Globe Coal Co., 369 Pa. 1, 84 A.2d 776 (1951). On the other hand, writings are not usually treated as subject to the rule if they are only evidence of the transaction, thing or event. See Hamill-Quinlan, Inc. v. Fisher, 404 Pa. Super. 482, 591 A.2d 309 (1991); Noble C. Quandel Co. v. Slough Flooring, Inc., 384 Pa. Super. 236, 558 A.2d 99 (1989). Thus, testimony as to a person�s age may be offered; it is not necessary to produce a birth certificate. See Commonwealth ex rel. Park v. Joyce, 316 Pa. 434, 175 A. 422 (1934). Or, a party�s earnings may be proven by testimony; it is not necessary to offer business records. See Noble C. Quandel Co. v. Slough Flooring, Inc., 384 Pa. Super. 236, 558 A.2d 99 (1989).

Traditionally, the best evidence rule applied only to writings. Photographs, which under the definition established by Pa.R.E. 1001(2) include x-ray films, videotapes, and motion pictures, are usually only evidence of the transaction, thing or event. It is rare that a photograph would be operative or dispositive, but in cases involving matters such as infringement of copyright, defamation, pornography and invasion of privacy, the requirement for the production of the original should be applicable. There is support for this approach in Pennsylvania law. See Commonwealth v. Lewis, 424 Pa. Super. 531, 623 A.2d 355 (1993) (video tape); Anderson v. Commonwealth, 121 Pa. Cmwlth. 521, 550 A.2d 1049 (1988) (film).

Rule 1003. Admissibility of Duplicates.

A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or (2) in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.

Comment

This rule is identical to F.R.E. 1003 and is a modest extension of Pennsylvania law.

Under the traditional best evidence rule, copies of documents were not routinely admissible. This view dated back to the time when copies were made by hand copying and were therefore subject to inaccuracy. On the other hand, Pennsylvania courts have admitted copies made by techniques that are more likely to produce accurate copies. For example, when a writing is produced in duplicate or multiplicate each of the copies is treated as admissible for purposes of the best evidence rule. See Brenner v. Lesher, 332 Pa. 522, 2 A.2d 731 (1938); Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd. v. Evolo, 204 Pa. Super. 225, 203 A.2d 332 (1964).

In addition, various Pennsylvania statutes have treated some accurate copies as admissible. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. � 6104 (governmental records in the Commonwealth); 42 Pa.C.S.A. � 5328 (domestic records outside the Commonwealth and foreign records); 42 Pa.C.S.A. � 6106 (documents recorded or filed in a public office); 42 Pa.C.S.A. � 6109 (photographic copies of business and public records); 42 Pa.C.S.A. � 6151-59 (certified copies of medical records).

The extension of similar treatment to all accurate copies seems justified in light of modern practice. Pleading and discovery rules such as Pa.R.C.P. 4009.1 (requiring production of originals of documents and photographs etc.) and Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(B)(1)(f) and (g) (requiring disclosure of originals of documents, photographs and recordings of electronic surveillance) will usually provide an adequate opportunity to discover fraudulent copies. As a result, Pa.R.E. 1003 should tend to eliminate purely technical objections and unnecessary delay. In those cases where the opposing party raises a genuine question as to authenticity or the fairness of using a duplicate, the trial court may require the production of the original under this rule.