Request for Judicial Notice

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Steven Robert Lisse v. Wendy Alison Nora

Case No.: 18-1866; 18-1889

Officials: EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.

Focus: Request for Judicial Notice

Appellant has submitted a document styled “Request for Judicial Notice.” In my capacity as motions judge, I deny this and publish a brief explanation in the hope of forestalling other, similar applications, which recently have increased in frequency. Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits a court to take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact that is “not subject to reasonable dispute” because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

I said at the outset that I am denying the “Request,” and readers may wonder why I am not granting it with respect to two documents and denying it with respect to two. The reason is that the “Request” is unnecessary. The right place to propose judicial notice, once a case is in a court of appeals, is in a brief. When evidence is “not subject to reasonable dispute”, there’s no need to multiply the paperwork by filing motions or “Requests.” Just refer to the evidence in the brief and explain there why it is relevant and subject to judicial notice. If the assertion is questionable, the opposing litigant can protest. “On timely request, a party is entitled to be heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice and the nature of the fact to be noticed.” Rule 201(e). That “timely request” and the “opportunity to be heard” both belong in the next brief. So if an appellant proposes judicial notice, the appellee’s objection can be presented in its own brief. If it is an appellee who proposes judicial notice, the appellant’s reply brief provides the opportunity to be heard in opposition. There’s no need to engage in motions practice, require the attention of additional appellate judges, and defer briefing.

The “Request” therefore is denied as unnecessary with respect to the two judicial orders and is denied as both unnecessary and not meritorious with respect to the other documents.

Denied

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.