Norcon, Inc. v. Kotowski case brief

1. Norcon, Inc. v. Kotowski (Alaska 1999)
1. business record is a memo by Ford, who works for Purcell, which was working with Norcon on the cleanup; Kotowski is employed by Norcon; after allegations of misconduct against Posehn, Ford does an investigation and writes a memo, which is a business record. In the memo are statements by two employees who say that Posehn had a lot of females in his room and that he would do favors for his female crew in exchange for sexual activity; she wants to get the statements in for their truth
2. holding: not error to admit the Ford memo, b/c Coyle and Stampley (the two employees who made statements) were agents speaking at a time when they were employed by Norcon; as supervisors and safety employees, alcohol use and sexual harassment are matters which their jobs required them to report, especially in response to an employer-initiated investigation
3. two potential methods for admission
• 801(d)(2) vicarious admission – use 803(6) to allow proof that employees said what the business record said they said, and 801(d)(2) to admit inner level of hearsay (sexual harassment)
• 803(6) business record – use statements of Norcon employees as part of the Ford business record; even though C and S aren’t in the Purcell business, they are in the Norcon business, which is affiliated
1. unusual use of 803(6), when there is more than one business involved
2. advantage of treating it all as an 803(6) exception is that either side could offer the evidence – under 801(d)(2), only opponent can admit it