In re Vee Vinhnee
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
336 B.R. 437 (2005)

- Written by Kate Luck, JD
Facts
Vee Vinhnee (debtor) filed for bankruptcy, seeking to discharge debts owed to American Express (creditor), among others. American Express filed suit against Vinhnee to prevent the debt it was owed from being discharged. At the hearing, American Express sought to introduce computerized records. American Express called one of its employees to testify that he was familiar with the company’s computers, software, and recordkeeping. The employee described the equipment used by the company, named the computer software used by the company, stated that the computers and their software were standard for the industry, and stated that the computers were considered reliable. The witness did not testify to his position, title, or training. The witness did not provide information about American Express’s computer policies, system controls, or data security. The witness did not explain how data was backed up, or whether the system was audited to ensure the records’ integrity. The trial court ruled that there was insufficient evidence in the record to authenticate the computer records and entered judgment for Vinhnee. American Express appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by disallowing its computerized evidence.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Klein, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.