United States: Will The Ancient Document Exception To The Hearsay Rule Become Ancient History?

The federal judiciary has proposed amending the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) by abrogating Rule 803(16) regarding the "ancient documents" exception to the hearsay rule (the Rule).

Briefly, FRE Rule 801(c) defines hearsay as "a statement that (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement." FRE 802 The Rule Against Hearsay provides that such a statement is not admissible as evidence unless the statement falls into one of the many exceptions to the hearsay rule detailed in the FRE. The ancient document exception set out in the Rule provides one such exception.

Text and Origin of the Ancient Document Exception

Rule 803(16) currently provides that a "statement in a document that is at least 20 years old and whose authenticity is established" is not excluded by the hearsay rule. FRE Rule 901(b)(8) provides a method for authenticating such a document when there is "evidence that it: (A) is in a condition that creates no suspicion about its authenticity; (B) was in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be; and (C) is at least 20 years old when offered."

By way of background, the common law traditionally allowed for authenticating certain documents based on their age on the theory that "old" documents were inherently reliable when they are found in a place where they should be located. The common law ancient document exception embodied in the Rule was originally devised in the mid-1700s to support real estate matters, on the theory that real estate documents more than 40 years old, such as deeds, easements and the like, that were found where they should be found had an inherent measure of authenticity to them. Over time this concept, as embodied in the 20-year threshold of the Rule, evolved and was expanded to address the admissibility of documents used in any area of law where factual issues underlying the causes of action may be decades or more old. In addition to its original purpose in real estate transactions, the Rule currently impacts many areas of law with long-tail liability such as environmental pollution, toxic torts, sexual and child molestation, and contractual disputes. Notably, these types of matters also have corresponding insurance coverage implications.

The Proposed Rule Change

The draft proposed rule change, which was released for comment in August 2015, reads as follows:

Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay −
Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is
Available as a Witness

The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:

* * * * *

(16) Statements in Ancient Documents. A statement in a document that is at least 20 years old and whose authenticity is established.
[Abrogated (Effective Dec. 1, 2017).]

The comment period on the proposal closed in February 2016.

Impetus to Proposed Rule Change

The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules (the Committee) proposed the change because it anticipated an onslaught of requests to admit various types of electronic documents under the Rule, particularly since electronic storage of documents and data has been standard practice for approximately 20 years. The Committee was concerned that electronic data is not inherently reliable just because it is old; i.e., will we base future legal decisions on a 20-year-old Facebook post?

While acknowledging in its proposal that the common law traditionally allowed for authenticating documents based on age, the Committee found that it is relatively young by common law standards and lacked a longstanding tradition. The Committee argued that the exception remains only because it is seldom used; and then usually because no other evidence is available. While questioning the reliability of certain electronic data, such as archived social media, email and webpages, the Committee noted that the advent of long-term electronic data storage potentially makes more-reliable documents and data available to the parties.

At its heart, the proposal challenges the notion that a document is reliable simply because it is old. The current rule gives authenticity to a document that is 20 years old. What is it about a 20-year-old document that gives it an inherent air of reliability that was not inherent when the document was only 19 years old? Is this akin to laws that assume a person is mature enough to vote at 18 but not 17, or to drive at 17 but not 16?

Arguments to Keep the Rule

Opposition to the proposal has been fairly strong. Of the 208 comments filed during the comment period, 205 opposed the proposal. The majority of these comments came from practitioners who regularly use the Rule in their practice. While use of the Rule may not be common in general litigation, commenters argued that it is essential to their particular areas of practice.

Commenters argued that ancient documents properly admitted under the Rule have an independent air of reliability. For an ancient document to be admitted into evidence under the Rule, its proponent must demonstrate its inherent reliability, usually by showing that it was found "in a condition that creates no suspicion about its authenticity." Rule 901(b)(8)(a). Proponents offering documents under the Rule often do so because the document is crucial to the matter at hand and no alternative is available. Moreover, authenticating ancient documents where no living person is available to authenticate same under any other exception, even if possible, can be very expensive, time consuming and thus ultimately prejudicial to their client.

Proponents of keeping the Rule pointed to sexual and child molestation cases where the alleged acts often happened decades prior. They argued that an abuse victim who either finally found the courage to speak up or was forced to speak up because of current circumstance would be victimized again because the authors of critical documents are either dead or nowhere to be found. Similarly, they pointed out that cases against accused Nazi war criminals, including attempts to return stolen property to their rightful owners, are built on Nazi records from the 1930s and 1940s. Other commenters made similar arguments for toxic tort cases. Frequently, the proof of plaintiff's exposure, or lack thereof, may be contained solely in archived records since witnesses to events are long deceased, and thus documents admitted through the Rule may be the only alternative.

Proposed Alternatives

The Committee reviewed and ultimately rejected three alternatives to abrogation as unworkable. It considered (1) limiting the exception to hardcopy, (2) aligning it with Rule 807, the residual exception to the hearsay rule, and (3) adding a provision that a document would be excluded if an opponent could show it has a lack of trustworthiness. Notably, they rejected limiting the exception to hardcopy on the grounds that it is very difficult to distinguish between an original document and electronic copies. The Committee also rejected the second and third alternatives on the grounds that these would essentially turn the Rule into an unnecessary clone of the residual exception rule.

Several commentators acknowledged problems with the Rule and proposed revisions to address its shortcomings. A proposal extending the threshold period to 30 years was offered as way to give the judiciary a decade to develop a workable strategy and bring the federal Rule more in line with the original common law exception and the laws of many states. Another proposal was to formally require authentication as prescribed under Rule 901(b)(8). A third proposal would add language to the Rule to make clear that the exception only applies to hearsay statements made by the author of the document, not statements of others recounted in the document not otherwise allowed by FRE Rule 805, hearsay within hearsay.

Particular Implications for Long-Tail Injury Matters

If enacted, this rule change will likely have significant implications for so-called "long-tail" injury matters. Consider, for example, the potential financial implications in matters involving the remediation of our country's most toxic sites. Liability disputes for environmental remediation and damages brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) or its state counterparts are fact-sensitive disputes often involving activities dating back decades, with many of these matters requiring the parties to establish operating processes and procedures employed by the company in question 50 years or more prior to the complaint.

In many cases, the only evidence tying these companies to astronomical liabilities is found in ancient documents. As one might expect, there may be no one alive to authenticate these records. Thus, both sides, by necessity, may rely on ancient documents in meeting their burden of proof: (1) the government or a private plaintiff in a cost recovery or contribution action, to establish a company's liability and (2) the company to defend against these liability allegations. Under CERCLA, the federal government, ultimately we the people, pay the tab for remediation when responsible parties cannot be found. Indeed, commenters representing regulators and potentially liable parties seeking cost recovery or contribution objected to the change for these reasons.

In addition, hazardous waste, toxic tort and other long-tail liability matters invariably involve another layer − insurance coverage issues. A finding of coverage versus no coverage can change the complexion of these types of high-value litigation. Coverage determinations often are based on policies written and sometimes superseded or dropped decades ago. Importantly, in all these cases, it is the insured, not the insurer, who bears the burden of proving the existence and content of a disputed policy − a burden that, as a practical matter, they may be unable to carry without relying on the ancient document exception.


At this point, it is unclear whether the Judicial Committee will ultimately reject, adopt or modify the proposal. As noted above, however, abrogation of the Rule is likely to have significant economic ramifications that could be advantageous to certain parties that find themselves as defendants in environmental cost recovery or contribution suits as well as insurers defending against policyholder suits for coverage. Conversely, plaintiffs seeking cost recovery and contribution, toxic tort plaintiffs, and insurers seeking to prove exclusions using ancient documents may find that abrogation of the Rule significantly impairs their ability to do so.

An interesting outcome of the proposed abrogation is that a document could be authenticated under Rule 901(b)(8), which will remain, because of its ancient status but still be excluded as hearsay because it does not fit under any other exception.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions