The IT Law Wiki


D&H Auto Parts, Inc. v. Ford Marketing Corp., 57 F.R.D. 548 (E.D.N.Y. 1973).

Factual Background[]

D&H sued the defendant for violation of the Robinson-Patman and Clayton Acts, claiming that Ford granted extra discounts to other distributors and denied them to plaintiff. The complaint also contained a cause of action for breach of contract. The defendant counterclaimed for damages on the theory that D&H sought excessive discounts.

Trial Court Proceedings[]

In support of its counterclaim, defendant offered into evidence computer printouts of the amounts claimed as discounts, and the amount of sales. The trial court held for the defendant. Plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict, claiming as error admission of the printouts.

The court reviewed the printouts to determine if they met the standards of the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The court first noted that the computer records were prepared each month in the regular course of business, and not merely for the purpose of litigation. Additionally, though the plaintiff objected to the evidence, it failed to point to any specific inaccuracy in the data.[1] Finally, since the defendant's witness, the head of accounting, gave sufficient testimony as to the nature of the data, Ford was not required to produce experts on data processing.


  1. The court cited Olympic Ins. Co. v. Harrison, Inc., 418 F.2d 669 (5th Cir. 1969)(full-text), for the proposition that a party must object to a specific error, and not to a general inaccuracy.