USA v. GORDON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	)
) 	1:19-cr-00007-JAW
v. 	)
)
DOUGLAS GORDON 	)
ORDER ON GOVERNMENT’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE FOR
DETERMINATION THAT EXHIBITS 17, 17A, AND 17B QUALIFY AS
ADMISSIBLE RECORDS UNDER RULE 803(6)
In anticipation of trial on charges of criminal copyright infringement and mail
fraud, the United States (Government) moves in limine for a pre-trial ruling on the
admissibility of certain trial exhibits under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6). 	The
Court concludes that one of the proffered exhibits is authentic and admissible, but it
defers judgment on two other exhibits because the record does not reflect who made
the exhibits.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On June 3, 2019, the Government filed a motion in limine to determine
whether certain exhibits qualify as admissible records under Rule 803 of the Federal
Rules of Evidence. 	Gov’t’s Mot. in Limine for Determination that Exs. Qualify as
Admissible Rs. Under Rule 803 (ECF No. 59) (Gov’t’s Mot.); Gov’t’s Mot., Attachs.,
Exs. 1-10; Additional Attachs., Attachs., Exs. 11-18 (ECF No. 60); Additional
Attachs., Attachs., Exs. 19-28 (ECF No. 61). On June 28, 2019, Douglas Gordon filed
his response to the Government’s motion in limine. 	Def.’s Resp. to Gov’t’s Mot. in
Limine that Exs. Qualify as Admissible Rs. Under Rule 803 (ECF No. 62) (Def.’s
Case 1:19-cr-00007-JAW Document 138 Filed 10/09/19 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Opp’n). On July 12, 2019, the Government filed its reply. Reply of United States to
Def.’s Resp. 	to 	Gov’t’s Mot. 	in 	Limine 	for Determination 	that 	Exs. 	Qualify 	as
Admissible Rs. (ECF No. 65) (Gov’t’s Reply).
The Court ruled on the Government’s motion on September 11, 2019. 	Order
on Gov’t’s Mot. in Limine for Determination that Exs. Qualify as Admissible Rs. Under
Rule 803 (ECF No. 86) (Order). In the order, the Court reserved judgment on Exhibits
Seventeen-A 	and 	Seventeen-B 	due 	to 	Federal 	Rule 	of 	Evidence 	803(6)(E)
trustworthiness concerns. 	Id. at 32. 	During the final pretrial conference on
September 23, 2019, the Government noted that it had inadvertently failed to supply
the Court with Exhibit Seventeen in its original motion in limine. See Final Pretrial
Order at 3 (ECF No. 115). 	The Government filed Exhibit Seventeen, along with a
supplemental motion in limine, on September 27, 2019. Gov’t’s Suppl. Mot. in Limine
for Determination that Exs. 17, 17A and 17B Qualify as Admissible Rs. Under Rule
803(6) (ECF No. 114) (Gov’t’s Suppl. Mot.); Gov’t’s Suppl. Mot., Attach., Ex. 17. Mr.
Gordon filed a response to the supplemental motion on September 30, 2019. 	Def.’s
Resp. to Gov’t’s Suppl. Mot. in Limine for Determination that Ex. 17, 17A, and 17B
Qualify as Admissible Rs. Under Rule 803(6) (ECF No. 120) (Def.’s Resp.).
II. 	PARTIES’ POSITIONS
The Government argues that “Exhibit Numbers 17, 17A and 17B are authentic
and are, subject to determinations of relevance, admissible evidence at trial within
the meaning of the Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) hearsay rule exception.” Gov’t’s
Suppl. Mot. at 1. 	The Government explains that Exhibit Seventeen is “a disk
Case 1:19-cr-00007-JAW Document 138 Filed 10/09/19 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
produced by Stripe, Inc. on March 10, 2017 which includes subscriber information
and payment information in the form of Excel spreadsheets.” 	Id. 	“Stripe, Inc. is a
software and credit card processing company used by the Defendant to receive
payments over the Internet for purchases of DVD movies.” 	Id. 	The Government
further explains that “Exhibits 17A and 17B are parts of the payment information
spreadsheet which show DVD orders from July, 2016 to December, 2016 for the
movies Babes in Toyland and The Night They Saved Christmas in support of Count
2.” 	Id. 	It is the Government’s position that by providing the disk containing “the
entire spreadsheets certified as authentic by the Stripe, Inc. custodian” that was
missing from the original motion in limine, “it has satisfied the requirements of
establishing that Exhibit Numbers 17A and 17B were made by Stripe, Inc. in the
course of its regularly conduced business activity.” 	Id. at 2. 	Thus, according to the
Government, “the certificate of authenticity [obtained from Stripe, Inc.] previously
submitted to the Court meets the Rule 803(6) requirements” and Exhibits Seventeen,
Seventeen-A, and Seventeen-B should be admissible. Id. at 2-3.
Mr. Gordon “requests the Court refrain from ruling on the [supplemental
motion in limine] until sufficient foundation is provided by the Government.” Def.’s
Resp. at 1. 	He argues that “[i]t remains unclear . . . whether Exhibit 17A and 17B
were made by Stripe or if they were compiled by the Government based upon the
records received from Stripe.” Id. at 2. Due to this uncertainty, Mr. Gordon asserts,
“the Court should hear further foundational testimony before admitt[ing] these
records into evidence to the extent these were provided by Stripe.” 	Id. 	If the
Case 1:19-cr-00007-JAW Document 138 Filed 10/09/19 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Government “compiled [the spreadsheets] based on what Square1 has provided to the
Government,” Mr. Gordon argues, “the Government should be forced to offer Exhibit
17A and 17B as summary charts.” Id.
III. 	DISCUSSION
The Court concludes that Exhibit Seventeen is authentic and admissible under
Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6), subject to a determination of relevance. The Court
is now satisfied that the spreadsheets in Exhibits Seventeen-A and Seventeen-B are
parts of the payment information contained in Exhibit Seventeen. 	However, it
remains unclear whether Stripe, Inc. or the Government compiled the spreadsheets
in Exhibits Seventeen-A and Seventeen-B. The exhibits are spreadsheets containing
rows of data selected because of their alleged link to two movies—Babes in Toyland
and The Night They Saved Christmas—rather than entire pages of the original
payment spreadsheet. There is no evidence that Stripe, Inc. created the exhibits, and
even if it did, there is no evidence that it did so in the course of its regularly conducted
business.
The Court determines that it is possible, without further information about the
creation of the spreadsheets in Exhibits Seventeen-A and Seventeen-B, that the
Government will need to submit the exhibits as summary charts. See F ED. R. EVID.
1006. 	In fact, Mr. Gordon suggests that Exhibits Seventeen-A and Seventeen-B
might be admissible under Rule 1006. 	Def.’s Resp. at 2 (“[A]s Exhibit 17A and 17B
1 	Mr. Gordon refers to “Square” in his Opposition, but the context of the reference leads the
Court to believe that he is referring to Stripe. For the purposes of this order, the Court assumes that
he means to refer to Stripe.
Case 1:19-cr-00007-JAW Document 138 Filed 10/09/19 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
appear to be summary exhibits and they summarize what’s contained in Exhibit 17,
the Government should be forced to offer Exhibit 17A and 17B as summary charts”).
However, the Government has not proffered these exhibits as summary charts under
the rule.
The Court reserves final judgment on the authenticity and admissibility of
Exhibits Seventeen-A and Seventeen-B.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the Government’s Supplemental Motion in Limine for
Determination that Exhibits 17, 17A and 17B Qualify as Admissible Records Under
Rule 803(6) (ECF No. 114) as to Exhibit Seventeen and DEFERS FINAL RULING on
Exhibits Seventeen-A and Seventeen-B until trial.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 9th day of October, 2019
Case 1:19-cr-00007-JAW Document 138 Filed 10/09/19 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>