Electronic Data Compilations as Business Records: Expanding Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) and 902(11) in United States v. Conde

Introduction

United States v. Conde, 22-250 (2d Cir. Apr. 11, 2025), addressed for the first time in this Circuit the admission of a single‐page, digitally‐compiled response from a telecommunications provider (“Optimum”) as a self-authenticating business record under Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) and 902(11). Defendant Salifou Conde was convicted in the Southern District of New York of wire fraud, bank fraud and conspiracy after mail thefts of New York City Human Resources Administration rent checks. On appeal, he challenged the admission—over his hearsay and Confrontation Clause objections—of an electronically generated chart showing that certain bank accounts used for the fraud had paid Optimum cable/internet charges on an account in his name and address. The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that electronic data compilations printed in response to a subpoena qualify as business records when kept in the ordinary course of business and authenticated by a proper certification, and that their admission does not violate the Sixth Amendment.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the district court’s decision to admit the “Optimum Payment Record” under the business‐records hearsay exception and as self-authenticating evidence. It held that:

The one-page chart was a “record” or “data compilation” within the broad definition of Rule 803(6).
Optimum’s custodian declaration under Rule 902(11) sufficiently showed that the data were made near the time of occurrence, by a person with knowledge, and kept in the ordinary course of business as a regular practice.
Retrieval of the electronic data in response to a subpoena—and the fact that Optimum could not match two of the queried payments—did not defeat admissibility or reliability.
Because the record was properly admitted as a business record, its use did not implicate the Confrontation Clause.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The panel surveyed decades of authority on business-records hearsay and electronic evidence:

Potamkin Cadillac Corp. v. B.R.I. Coverage Corp. (2d Cir. 1994): held that automated bank machine printouts are business records if made and kept routinely, and that reliability turns on trustworthiness rather than literal paper originals.
United States v. Komasa (2d Cir. 2014): clarified that a custodian need not have personal knowledge of every entry; business records may be self-authenticating under Rule 902(11).
United States v. D’Agostino (2d Cir. 2016): upheld admission of IRS computer printouts created weeks before trial, noting that printing does not turn routine records into litigation documents.
Circuit cases in other Circuits (Nixon, Fujii, Burgos-Montes) similarly validated database query printouts as business records even when produced for subpoenas or litigation.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning can be grouped under three key headings:

Definition of “Record” and “Data Compilation”: The Evidence Rules expressly include electronic data compilations in their definition of “record” (Rules 101(b)(4), (6); 803(6)), tracking Civil Rule 34’s broad conception of “documents” in the digital era. There is no requirement that every datum originate in paper form.
Timing and Purpose of Creation: Rule 803(6) focuses on when the data were generated—at or near the event by a knowledgeable person—and whether they were kept in the ordinary course of business, not on when they were printed or whether produced in response to a subpoena. The act of querying and printing does not transform routine records into litigation documents.
Reliability and Trustworthiness: Optimum’s inability to match two earlier payments did not undermine the trustworthiness of its routine system for recording customer payments. Absent any evidence of tampering or unreliability, the custodian’s certification sufficed to establish authenticity and reliability under Rules 803(6)(A)–(C) and 902(11).

3. Impact on Future Cases

United States v. Conde sets a clear precedent in the Second Circuit that:

Single-page or excerpted electronic summaries may be admitted as business records if they reflect underlying data kept in the ordinary course of business, even when generated at trial preparation or subpoena response.
Rule 902(11) certifications that mirror Rule 803(6)(A)–(C)’s requirements are sufficient to dispense with live-witness foundation testimony, streamlining trials.
Defendants cannot defeat such hearsay by pointing to isolated gaps in a provider’s ability to match certain queries; reliability is judged holistically.
Recognizing these principles will accelerate the admission of digital evidence—e-mail logs, billing data, transaction histories—while preserving due process under the Confrontation Clause.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Hearsay: An out-of-court statement offered for its truth; generally inadmissible unless an exception applies.
Business-Records Exception (Rule 803(6)): Allows admission of records made at or near the time of events, by someone with knowledge, kept routinely by a business, and shown to be trustworthy.
Self-Authentication (Rule 902(11)): Permits certain certified business records to be admitted without calling a custodian to testify live—reducing expense and delay.
Confrontation Clause (Sixth Amendment): Guarantees a criminal defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him. Properly admitted business records are deemed nontestimonial and do not implicate this right.
Electronically Stored Information (ESI): Digital data—databases, spreadsheets, video or audio files—covered by the Evidence Rules’ broad references to “records” and “documents.”

Conclusion

United States v. Conde is a landmark decision in the Second Circuit’s evidence jurisprudence, confirming that modern businesses’ routine digital records are entitled to the same hearsay exemption as traditional paper ledgers. By reaffirming that electronic data compilations printed in response to subpoenas satisfy Rules 803(6) and 902(11), the Court balances trial efficiency with reliability and due process. Trials involving complex electronic evidence—bank statements, cable billing records, automated logs—will now proceed on well-grounded footing, ensuring that courts keep pace with evolving technology without compromising fundamental constitutional protections.