In Quinones v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 2011 WL 4498985 (S.D.Cal. 2011), Judge Battaglia addressed a rather complicated factual pattern relating to whether a debt collector improperly collected a debt from the father or the son.  In addressing the debt collector’s motion for summary judgment, Judge Battaglia overruled Plaintiff’s objections to the debt collector’s custodian of records declaration: 


Plaintiffs filed an objection to the declaration of Karen Trimmer and argues that her declaration is not a proper business records declaration and does not provide proper foundation or authentication under Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) and 902(11). (Dkt. No. 84–2.) They argue that she is not a custodian of the referenced documents, has no personal knowledge of the facts of this case other than what she has read in the documents, and had no involvement in the case prior to the commencement of the lawsuit. Defendant opposes arguing Trimmer is qualified to testify.    Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) provides, “A … report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, condition, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the … report, record or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness … unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness.” Fed.R.Evid. 803(6).    In order for business records to be admissible, “the following foundational facts must be established through a custodian of the records or another qualified witness: (1) the records must have been made or transmitted by a person with knowledge at or near the time of the incident recorded; and (2) the record must have been kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity.” United States v. Ray, 930 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir.1990). “Other qualified witness” is broadly interpreted to require only that the witness understand the record-keeping system.” Id. (holding that welfare fraud investigator who was familiar with the filing and reporting requirements for public assistance benefits was “other qualified witness” although she was not custodian of record); United States v. Basey, 613 F.2d 198, 201 n. 1 (9th Cir.1979) (college records properly admitted to establish defendant’s address even though the custodian did not herself record the information and did not know who did). Federal Rule of Evidence 902(11) also states that a business record must be “accompanied by a written declaration of its custodian or other qualified person.”    Here, Karen Trimmer is Vice President and Senior Business Process Manager at Chase. (Trimmer Decl. ¶ 1.) She states she is a liaison between the fraud department and the lending area investigating customer disputes regarding fraud. (Id.) She states she is “a custodian of the documents maintained with respect to the two credit card accounts issued by Chase to plaintiff Mario B. Quinones (“Mario Senior”), and I am familiar with those records.” (Id.) She also states that Chase maintains records on credit card accounts in the ordinary course of its business and the records contain entries made at or near the time of the events recorded or information received in accordance with Chase’s regular practices. (Id. ¶ 2.) Based on her declaration, all factors under Rule 803(6) and Rule 902(11) have been met. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ objections as to Karen Trimmer’s declaration and accompanying exhibits are overruled.