Burnley v. Valentin

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

Walburn maintains that Burnley, using the pseudonym “Tyrone Jackson,” materially breached the Walburn-Burnley Settlement Agreement’s express prohibition against contacting Walburn’s employers about Walburn. In defense, Burnley denies calling Walburn’s current employer and claims that the Court cannot assume it was him based on voice comparison alone. He adds that any connection to a former neighbor named “Tyrone Jackson” is incorrect, as the man who once lived across from Burnley was named “Tyrone Miller.” He argues that the Court cannot grant the Motion to Enforce because the audio recordings have not been “authenticated prior to admission” pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a). Instead, he argues, the recordings are either someone else entirely or are a manipulated audio made by artificial intelligence to “clone” his voice. ... Here, the Court must determine whether the Walburn produced “evidence sufficient to support a finding” that the audio recording is what the Walburn claims it is. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Based on the evidence presented, which included two sworn declarations, the Court is satisfied that the audio recording is authentic and has not been materially altered.

Authorities cited in the passage: Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) · United States v. Howard-Arias, 679 F.2d 363 (4th Cir. 1982)