business records exception in California

2026As Judge Schneider observed in his written ruling, “there is no indication that the [Agreement] was made in the regular course of Impact’s business” or “that the [Agreement] was made at or near the time of the act, condition, or event; nor does Mullins attest to the document’s mode of preparation or how the onboarding process works.” Impact cites Jazayeri, a case in which the Court of Appeal held that a witness “need not have been present at every transaction to establish the business records exception; he or she need only be familiar with the procedures followed[.]” (Jazayeri, supra, 174 Cal.

2026Kyles emphasizes that “California courts consistently hold that medical and clinical records easily satisfy these requirements.” That much is true, but only “assuming a custodian of records or other duly qualified witness provides proper authentication to meet the foundational requirements of the hearsay exception.” (People v. McVey (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 405, 414 .) The business records exception “‘“requires a witness to testify as to the identity of the record and its mode of preparation in every instance.”’” (Bhatt v. State Dept. of Health Services (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 923, 929 , italics a

2026But “a printed compilation of . . . data produced by human query for use at trial falls under the business records exception where the underlying data is automatically recorded and stored by a reliable computer program in the regular course of business.” (People v. Zavala (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 242, 248 [admission of Excel spreadsheet generated for trial using phone call data].) “That the document[] ultimately entered in trial w[as] necessarily produced by human query does not render the data inadmissible because the underlying data itself was not produced by human input, but rather, was recor

2026He relies on People v. Zavala (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 242, 248 , in which the court held that “a printed compilation of call data produced by human query for use at trial falls under the business records exception where the underlying data is automatically recorded and stored by a reliable computer program in the regular course of business.” Rodriguez argues the People failed to present evidence showing how the cell phone data was recorded or stored and, therefore, there was insufficient evidence of the records’ trustworthiness.

2024(Coffey v. Shiomoto (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1198, 1206, fn. 8 [“ ‘[t]est results from authorized laboratories, performed by public employees within the scope of their duties, are admissible under the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule’ ”]; County of Sonoma v. Grant W. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1439, 1448 [finding that laboratory’s paternity test results were admissible under the business records exception due to testimony establishing chain of custody, despite the fact that the technicians who received and tested the samples did not testify and were not available for cross-examination

2024(Coffey v. Shiomoto (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1198, 1206, fn. 8 [“ ‘[t]est results from authorized laboratories, performed by public employees within the scope of their duties, are admissible under the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule’ ”]; County of Sonoma v. Grant W. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1439, 1448 [finding that laboratory’s paternity test results were admissible under the business records exception due to testimony establishing chain of custody, despite the fact that the technicians who received and tested the samples did not testify and were not available for cross-examination

2026(See People v. Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at pp. 674-675 [medical records and patient’s statements may qualify for hearsay exceptions]; Conservatorship of S.A. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 438, 447 [“medical records . . . were admissible under the business records exception to prove the acts, conditions, and events recorded therein”]; § 5122, subd. (a) [“in a proceeding relating to the appointment or reappointment of a conservator . . . the statement of a health practitioner . . . included in the medical record is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule” in certain circumstances].) Or, counsel may

2026Code, § 1271.) “It is the burden of the party offering the evidence to establish that these foundational requirements have been met.” (People v. McVey (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 405, 414 .) Business records may contain multiple levels of hearsay, each of which must satisfy a hearsay exception to be considered for the truth. ( Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at pp. 674–675.) Additionally, “some medical opinion has been deemed inadmissible under the business records exception of Evidence Code section 1271.

2026(See People v. Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at pp. 674-675 [medical records and patient’s statements may qualify for hearsay exceptions]; Conservatorship of S.A. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 438, 447 [“medical records . . . were admissible under the business records exception to prove the acts, conditions, and events recorded therein”]; § 5122, subd. (a) [“in a proceeding relating to the appointment or reappointment of a conservator . . . the statement of a health practitioner . . . included in the medical record is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule” in certain circumstances].) Or, counsel may

2026We review the trial court’s decision to admit documents as business records for an abuse of discretion (In re Conservatorship of S.A. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 438, 447 ) and find no such abuse. “[A]n injured plaintiff whose medical expenses are paid through private insurance may recover as economic damages . . . the amounts paid by the plaintiff or his or her insurer for the medical services received or still owing at the time of trial.” (Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, 566 .) To prove those amounts, Sandoval provided evidence that was admitted under the busines

2016Code, § 1271, subd. (c).) “It is the object of the business records statutes to eliminate the necessity of calling each witness, and to substitute the record of the transaction or event.” (Loper v. Morrison (1944) 23 Cal.2d 600 , 608–609.) “The witness need not have been present at every transaction to establish the business records exception; he or she need only be familiar with the procedures followed . . . .” (Jazayeri v. Mao (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 301, 322 .) Urquidi established that she had reviewed the documents and was familiar with the loan and foreclosure procedures.

2012The People also argued the Interdisciplinary Notes were admissible under section 1271, the business records exception to the hearsay rule. 5 As with section 1280, the object of the business records exception is “to eliminate the necessity of calling each witness, and to substitute the record of the transaction or event.” (Loper v. Morrison (1944) 23 Cal.2d 600, 608-609 [ 145 P.2d 1 ].) Additionally, for Nelson’s threats to harm or kill staff members the People cited section 1220, the exception for party admissions. 6 (10) “The rationale underlying this exception is that the party cannot object

2021(Yates, supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at p. 486 ; People v. Landau (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 850, 872, fn. 7 .) The business records exception is codified at Evidence Code section 1271.3 “Compliance with a subpoena duces tecum may dispense with the need for a live witness to establish the business records exception if the records are produced by the custodian or other qualified witness, together with the affidavit described in Evidence Code section 1561.” ( Yates, supra, at p. 486 .) Orey’s prison records and Coalinga State Hospital records were authenticated and made admissible under the public records

2020It is possible that CSH records documenting the aggressive act, if properly authenticated and based on personal observation, could have been admitted as business records. (§ 1271, subd. a; People v. Landau (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 850, 872, fn. 7 [“Hospital records, if properly authenticated, are admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

1991Appeals Bd., supra, 212 Cal.App.2d 106, 121 .) Without the proper certification, the records were not admissible under section 969b. {Ibid.) The People contend that the rap sheets qualify for admission under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, codified in Evidence Code section 1271, which provides that a writing is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if it was “ ‘. . . made in the regular course of a business; [fl] . . . at or near the time of the act, condition or event; fl]] (c) the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its prepa

1991Appeals Bd., supra, 212 Cal.App.2d 106, 121 .) Without the proper certification, the records were not admissible under section 969b. {Ibid.) The People contend that the rap sheets qualify for admission under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, codified in Evidence Code section 1271, which provides that a writing is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if it was “ ‘. . . made in the regular course of a business; [fl] . . . at or near the time of the act, condition or event; fl]] (c) the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its prepa

2025“Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of its content.” (People v. Valencia (2021) 11 Cal.5th 818, 831 , fn. omitted; Cameron v. Las Orchidias Properties, LLC (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 481 , 511; see also § 1200.) “Hearsay is inadmissible unless it falls under [a statutory] exception.” (People v. Ng (2022) 13 Cal.5th 448, 539 ; Bowser v. Ford Motor Co. (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 587 , 610.) One exception to the hearsay rule is the business records exception. (§ 1271; People v. Turner (2020) 10 Cal.5th 786, 822 ; People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983 , 1010–1011; Jones v. So

2024Code, § 1271 (“section 1271”); see People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983 , 1010–1011 (Hovarter); Conservatorship of S.A. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 438, 447 (S.A.).) To meet the business records exception, the proponent of the evidence must establish that: (1) the writing was made in the regular course of business; (2) the writing was made at or near the time of the act, condition, or event; (3) the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation; and (4) the sources of information and mode and method and time of preparation indicate trustworthiness

2026(People v. Reyes (1974) 12 Cal.3d 486 , 502–503 . . . [psychiatric opinion not admissible]; People v. Terrell (1955) 138 Cal.App.2d 35 , 57 . . . [physician’s opinion that patient had criminal abortion not 16 admissible].) The reasoning in those cases was that to be admissible under the business records exception, the evidence ‘. . . must be a record of an act, condition, or event; a conclusion is neither an act, condition or event.’ ” (People v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953, 980 .) As for the Hoag Hospital records, Gribbon attempted to lay the foundation with a declaration from a custodian of

2026(People v. Reyes, supra, 12 Cal.3d at pp. 502–503.) Accordingly, we are unable to meaningfully review whether the relevant portions of the Brookdale records qualified for the business records exception or whether they included multiple levels of hearsay.

2012(Id. at p. 582.) Even in the face of that ambiguity, the majority of notations in Pefia’s report were simple, nontestimonial business records. 1 In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009) 557 U.S. 305 [ 174 L.Ed.2d 314 , 129 S.Ct. 2527 ] (Melendez-Diaz), Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, made the point that not all documents produced by a business fall within the business records exception.

2012(Id. at p. 582.) Even in the face of that ambiguity, the majority of notations in Pefia’s report were simple, nontestimonial business records. 1 In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009) 557 U.S. 305 [ 174 L.Ed.2d 314 , 129 S.Ct. 2527 ] (Melendez-Diaz), Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, made the point that not all documents produced by a business fall within the business records exception.

2018The business records hearsay exception Codified by section 1271, the business records exception to the hearsay rule permits admission of hearsay to prove an act, condition, or event if the following foundational requirements are met: "(a) The writing was made in the regular course of a business; [¶] (b) The writing was made at or near the time of the act, condition, or event; [¶] (c) The custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation; and [¶] (d) The sources of information and method and time of preparation were such as to indicate its trustworth

2018The business records hearsay exception Codified by section 1271, the business records exception to the hearsay rule permits admission of hearsay to prove an act, condition, or event if the following foundational requirements are met: "(a) The writing was made in the regular course of a business; [¶] (b) The writing was made at or near the time of the act, condition, or event; [¶] (c) The custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation; and [¶] (d) The sources of information and method and time of preparation were such as to indicate its trustworth

2023(See People v. Crosslin (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 968, 975 [“The object of the statute is, of course, to eliminate the necessity of calling each witness and to substitute the record of the transaction instead.”]) The court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the Quickbooks printouts and the check registers.

2016Legal principles The business records exception to the hearsay rule is codified in Evidence Code section 1271, which provides: "Evidence of a writing made as a record of an act, condition, or event is not inadmissible by the hearsay rule when offered to prove the act, condition, or event if: [¶] (a) The writing was made in the regular course of a business; [¶] (b) The writing was made at or near the time of the act, condition, or event; [¶] (c) The custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation; and [¶] (d) The sources of information and method a

2023Owen v. Media One Direct, LLC (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1484 [finding authentication adequate where declarant averred that she reviewed files relating to matter and attached documents were true and correct copies of pertinent correspondence]; Jazayeri v. Mao (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 301, 322 [“The witness need not have been present at every transaction to establish the business records exception; he or she need only be familiar with the procedures followed”].) We reach the same conclusion under a de novo standard of review.

2018Owen v. Media One Direct, LLC, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 1484 , 153 Cal.Rptr.3d 636 [authentication adequate where declarant averred that she reviewed files relating to the matter and attached documents were true and correct copies of pertinent correspondence]; and see Jazayeri v. Mao (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 301 , 322, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 198 ["The witness need not have been present at every transaction to establish the business records exception; he or she need only be familiar with the procedures followed"].) Plaintiffs have failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in overrulin

2021(See People v. Ayers, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at pp. 994-995; Hutton v. Brookside Hospital (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 350, 355 [the business records exception “does not make admissible that which would be inadmissible if it were presented by oral testimony”].) We therefore undertake a two-step analysis to determine whether the trial court erred by admitting into evidence statements about or attributed to Orey that were reported in the prison records and the Coalinga State Hospital records.

2019Code, § 1271), our Supreme Court stated: “The psychiatrist’s opinion that the victim suffered from a sexual psychopathology was merely an opinion, not an act, condition or event within the meaning of the statute.” (People v. Reyes (1974) 12 Cal.3d 486 , 19 503; see also Hutton v. Brookside Hospital (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 350, 355 .) Although the deputies’ conclusion concerning the significance of the scale and baggies is not admissible under the official records exception to the hearsay rule, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the conclusion based on its reliability.

2026Code, § 1271.) “It is the burden of the party offering the evidence to establish that these foundational requirements have been met.” (People v. McVey (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 405, 414 .) Business records may contain multiple levels of hearsay, each of which must satisfy a hearsay exception to be considered for the truth. ( Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at pp. 674–675.) Additionally, “some medical opinion has been deemed inadmissible under the business records exception of Evidence Code section 1271.

2026Kyles emphasizes that “California courts consistently hold that medical and clinical records easily satisfy these requirements.” That much is true, but only “assuming a custodian of records or other duly qualified witness provides proper authentication to meet the foundational requirements of the hearsay exception.” (People v. McVey (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 405, 414 .) The business records exception “‘“requires a witness to testify as to the identity of the record and its mode of preparation in every instance.”’” (Bhatt v. State Dept. of Health Services (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 923, 929 , italics a

2021(See Dorsey, supra, 43 Cal.App.3d at p. 961 .) It did not consider whether and under what circumstances a contrary ruling would be an abuse of discretion.4 Crown contends that the elements of the business records exception can be inferred from the circumstances, but it has not shown the court abused its discretion by finding Crown’s showing inadequate.

2021(See Dorsey, supra, 43 Cal.App.3d at p. 961 .) It did not consider whether and under what circumstances a contrary ruling would be an abuse of discretion.4 Crown contends that the elements of the business records exception can be inferred from the circumstances, but it has not shown the court abused its discretion by finding Crown’s showing inadequate.

2017A similar argument was rejected in People v. Lugashi , supra , 205 Cal.App.3d 632 , 252 Cal.Rptr. 434 , which addressed the foundational evidence required for the business records exception to the hearsay rule in section 1271, for the admission of computer-generated credit card records.

2017A similar argument was rejected in People v. Lugashi , supra , 205 Cal.App.3d 632 , 252 Cal.Rptr. 434 , which addressed the foundational evidence required for the business records exception to the hearsay rule in section 1271, for the admission of computer-generated credit card records.

2024Nichols v. McCoy (1952) 38 Cal.2d 447 , 448‒449 [blood sample confirming elevated alcohol levels was properly admitted under the business records exception where coroner testified to the procedures followed in taking blood samples although embalmer had no personal knowledge of the decedent’s identity].) Stelmach, however, does not argue in her opening brief that the DNA report was inadmissible as a business or public employee record.

2024Nichols v. McCoy (1952) 38 Cal.2d 447 , 448‒449 [blood sample confirming elevated alcohol levels was properly admitted under the business records exception where coroner testified to the procedures followed in taking blood samples although embalmer had no personal knowledge of the decedent’s identity].) Stelmach, however, does not argue in her opening brief that the DNA report was inadmissible as a business or public employee record.

2018The business records hearsay exception Codified by section 1271, the business records exception to the hearsay rule permits admission of hearsay to prove an act, condition, or event if the following foundational requirements are met: "(a) The writing was made in the regular course of a business; [¶] (b) The writing was made at or near the time of the act, condition, or event; [¶] (c) The custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation; and [¶] (d) The sources of information and method and time of preparation were such as to indicate its trustworth

2018The business records hearsay exception Codified by section 1271, the business records exception to the hearsay rule permits admission of hearsay to prove an act, condition, or event if the following foundational requirements are met: "(a) The writing was made in the regular course of a business; [¶] (b) The writing was made at or near the time of the act, condition, or event; [¶] (c) The custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation; and [¶] (d) The sources of information and method and time of preparation were such as to indicate its trustworth

2023(Unifund CCR, LLC v. Dear (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 8 (Unifund) [qualified witness need not be custodian, person who created record, or one with personal knowledge in order for business record to be admissible under hearsay exception].) Moreover, the criteria for establishing that a document is subject to the business records exception to the hearsay rule may be inferred from the circumstances.

2020Code, § 1271.) Mellon relies on Unifund CCR, LLC v. Dear (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 8 (Unifund), which liberally construed the business records exception to affirm a 6 judgment in favor of an assignee-debt collector.

2024Code, § 1271, subds. (a), (b), & (c).) 11 section 1271” because “there was no evidence regarding the mode of preparation or other information indicating trustworthiness”]; Sierra Managed Asset Plan, LLC. v. Hale (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 9 [declaration by a debt collector’s employee established, at best, the debt collector “received records originating from [the creditor] concerning the account in question,” which fell “short of the foundation necessary for admission of business records as against a hearsay objection”]; see also People v. Selivanov (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 726, 775 [witnesse

2020The appellate division concluded the computerized ledgers reflecting the defendant’s debt on the original credit card account was admissible “[s]ince the description coincides with our commonsense understanding of how credit card records are electronically generated.” (Id. at pp. 7-8.) In a similar case, the appellate division in Sierra Managed Asset Plan, LLC v. Hale (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 (Sierra) applied the traditional understanding of the business records exception.

2026(People v. Reyes (1974) 12 Cal.3d 486 , 502–503 . . . [psychiatric opinion not admissible]; People v. Terrell (1955) 138 Cal.App.2d 35 , 57 . . . [physician’s opinion that patient had criminal abortion not 16 admissible].) The reasoning in those cases was that to be admissible under the business records exception, the evidence ‘. . . must be a record of an act, condition, or event; a conclusion is neither an act, condition or event.’ ” (People v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953, 980 .) As for the Hoag Hospital records, Gribbon attempted to lay the foundation with a declaration from a custodian of

2018The trial court has wide discretion to determine whether there is a sufficient foundation to qualify evidence as a business record; we will overturn its decision to admit such records only upon a clear showing of abuse. ( People v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953 , 978-979, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 891 P.2d 153 .) The business records exception requires a foundational showing that (1) the writing was made in the regular course of business; (2) at or near the time of the act, condition, or event; (3) the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and mode of preparation; and (4) the

2026Kyles emphasizes that “California courts consistently hold that medical and clinical records easily satisfy these requirements.” That much is true, but only “assuming a custodian of records or other duly qualified witness provides proper authentication to meet the foundational requirements of the hearsay exception.” (People v. McVey (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 405, 414 .) The business records exception “‘“requires a witness to testify as to the identity of the record and its mode of preparation in every instance.”’” (Bhatt v. State Dept. of Health Services (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 923, 929 , italics a

2010Code, §1271) These exhibits also do not fall under the business records exception of Evidence Code section 1271 (section 1271). 3 In order to establish the proper foundation for the admission of a business record, an appropriate witness must be called to lay that foundation ( Bhatt, supra, 133 Cal.App.4th 923, 929 ).

2024(People v. McDaniel (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 986, 1002 ; Zanone, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at pp. 191–192.) The times noted 39 on the records were not based on the observations of people “whose job it [was] to know the facts recorded.” (Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 114, 126 .) The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding the handwritten portions of the sign-in sheets did not qualify under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

2024(People v. McDaniel (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 986, 1002 ; Zanone, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at pp. 191–192.) The times noted 39 on the records were not based on the observations of people “whose job it [was] to know the facts recorded.” (Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 114, 126 .) The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding the handwritten portions of the sign-in sheets did not qualify under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.