N.D.Tex.: Three SWs not part of case were not subject to judicial notice

In a civil case, the court refuses to take judicial notice of the facts alleged in three search warrants that are not part of the case. Aubrey v. D Magazine Partners, L.P., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12304 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2020):

A. The Court Will Not Take Judicial Notice of the Existence of Facts in the Search-Warrant Affidavits.

Plaintiffs contend that the search-warrant affidavits come from “credible sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned .” See Doc. 98-1, Pls.’ Mot., 2. Courts may take judicial notice of facts that “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). Nonetheless, courts should do so “sparingly at the pleadings stage.” See Reneker v. Offill, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38526, 2010 WL 1541350, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 19, 2010) (citation and internal quotations omitted).

Here, the Court is not convinced that Plaintiffs’ exhibits derive from sources “whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). Plaintiffs’ motion for judicial notice explains that Plaintiffs received the affidavits at issue through an Open Records Request to the City of Dallas. See Doc. 98, Pls.’ Mot. for Leave, 1. But Plaintiffs’ attached exhibits—the search-warrant affidavits and related documents—do not include the Request itself. See generally, Doc. 98-1, Pls.’ Mot., Exs. A—C. Accordingly, the Court “is unable to determine, from the documents provided, what exact information Plaintiff[s] requested from” the City of Dallas. See Fahs Constr. Grp., Inc. v. Gray, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96519, 2012 WL 2873532, at *4 (N.D. N.Y. July 12, 2012). Further, the Court lacks evidence, such as a cover letter, that these documents were actually disclosed by the City of Dallas.

Accordingly, though the Court recognizes its ability to take judicial notice of the existence of public documents when deciding motions to dismiss, see Norris v. Hearst Trust, 500 F.3d 454, 461 n.9 (5th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), the Court is not certain that the affidavits are indeed public documents. These documents were “not prepared for review for the general public”—instead, they were allegedly obtained only through an open-records request. …

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.