SDNY Resolves Authenticity Dispute in Lawsuit Regarding Tiffany Paintings
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(8), one way in which a party can authenticate an item of evidence is through:
(8) Evidence About Ancient Documents or Data Compilations. For a document or data compilation, 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.
A good example of how a part can fail to satisfy the requirements of Rule 901(b)(8) can be found in Platt as co-trustees of Platt Family Artwork Trust v. Michaan, 2023 WL 6292770 (S.D.N.Y. 2023).
concerns two paintings by the renowned artist Louis Comfort Tiffany (“Tiffany”)—“Market Day at Nuremberg,” and “In the Fields at Irvington” (the “Paintings”). Tiffany’s great-great grandsons, Timo and Gordon Platt (“Plaintiffs”), as co-trustees for the Platt Family Artwork Trust (the “Trust”), brought [an] action against Allen Michaan (“Michaan”) to recover the Paintings. Plaintiffs allege[d] that the Paintings [we]re subject to an anti-alienation restriction that required that they remain in the Platt family in perpetuity. Michaan allege[d] that he purchased the Paintings from a member of the Platt family who had title to the Paintings.
Market Day at Nuremberg
A key piece of evidence in the dispute was a 1994 letter that the plaintiffs alleged “demonstrates conclusively” that there was an anti-alienation restriction concerning the Paintings. The court ultimately found that the plaintiffs properly authenticated the letter, but not under Rule 901(b)(8). According to the court,
Authenticity is a condition precedent to admissibility. The bar for authentication of evidence is not particularly high…. The requirement of authentication is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). The rule is flexible about what serves to authenticate a document. For example, direct testimony by a knowledgeable witness satisfies the rule. See Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1). A party could also satisfy the authentication requirement if the document’s form and content, taken with other circumstances, indicate that the document is reliable. See Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4). And for ancient documents22 such as the 1994 Letter, evidence that it (1) is in a condition that creates no suspicion about its authenticity; (2) was in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be; and (3) is at least 20 years old when offered can satisfy the requirement. Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(8)(a)–(c) (emphasis added).
Generally, a document is properly authenticated if a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity….The Court finds that the 1994 Letter is admissible.
Unlike other letter communications on the record, the 1994 Letter is unsigned and not on Thomas’ United States District Court letterhead….
Additionally, the 1994 Letter cannot be authenticated under Rule 901(b)(8) because it fails to meet two of the three conditions. First, the lack of signature and letterhead on the letter creates “suspicion about its authenticity”; and secondly, Plaintiffs do not provide information on where the letter was found, thus they are unable to make the requisite finding that the document “was in a place where, if authentic it would likely be.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(8)(a–b).
However, Timo testified that he has “personal knowledge” of the copy of the 1994 Letter: that it was prepared by his father Thomas in May 1994 following the death of Thomas’ mother, Louise, in connection with the division of custody of the Tiffany paintings, including the Paintings….He also stated that the letter was created using carbon paper in a manual typewriter, that he read the letter in 1994, that it is a duplicate of the original sent by Thomas, and that it was sent to and received by Henry and Graham….
Accordingly, the Court finds that the 1994 Letter meets the low bar of authentication under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a).
f