I only have a minute right now because I need to leave and get my dog to the vet, however, here is my Motion in Limine that I filed here in Ohio two weeks before trial. Shortly after that I received a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal from the other side. Granted, my case was against a JDB and not an OC, but still, there might be things in it you can use in your case. I will be glad to talk with you when I get back if you have any questions. I did not have to do a trial brief so I'm not that familiar with how that works. However, some of the cases below may be of use. I do know that in Ohio they don't have to produce an actual contract (if they issued the card and you used it and they can prove it) but I think they'd need a governing Cardmember Agreement or some kind of agreement to prove the interest rate they are charging you. Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Now comes Defendant XXXXXXXXXXX, a pro se litigant, and moves the Court that the following evidence should be excluded from admission in the above-referenced case for the following reasons: The Affidavit of XXXXXXXXXX, attached to Plaintiff's Complaint, (Exhibit A) should be excluded from submission due to an ongoing investigation into the authenticity of the signature of notary, XXXXXXXXX. After comparing the signature on the Affidavit to the official notary signature on file with the Secretary of State of Missouri and finding significant discrepancies, the Defendant has good reason to question the authenticity of the signature of the notary on the Affidavit. After such discovery, Defendant filed a complaint with the office of the Secretary of State of Missouri (Exhibit B ) and an investigation is currently ongoing per communication from the office of Jason Kander, Secretary of State for the State of Missouri (Exhibit C). Defendant suspects that the Affiant's signature may be a sign of robo-signing practices already proven against many credit card companies when it comes to their debt collection practices. The signature of the notary on the Affidavit also does not follow the rules of the State of Missouri when it comes to a notary's signature. Pages 22 and 23 of the "Missouri Notary Handbook" (Exhibit D) states that a notary may use initials for his or her first and middle names, but that the last name is to be written out in full. That is not the case with the notary's signature on this Affidavit. In the Affidavit, Affiant XXXXXXXX states that her statements are based on "personal knowledge" or "review of the business records of Citibank." XXXXXXXXXXXXX does not definitively prove that her statements were made on the required personal knowledge. They may have been made solely based on the review of business records. Also, the Affiant, XXXXXXXXX, offers no information in her affidavit as to how the records are compiled, what type of programming is used, how the information is entered and what safeguards are used. She also does not reference her training, background or knowledge regarding the use of the computers or how records are transmitted. See Chase Bank, USA v. Curren, 191 Ohio App.3d 507, 2010-Ohio-6596 and John Soliday Fin. Group, L.L.C. v. Pittenger, 190 Ohio App.3d 145, 2010-Ohio-4861. Also, the Affidavit fails to specifically identify, attach or reference the documents which were consulted by Ms. XXXXXXX. As such, it cannot authenticate any of the documents submitted in support of Plaintiff's case. See TPI Asset Mgt. v. Conrad-Eiford, 193 Ohio App.3d 38, 2011-Ohio-1405. The documents attached to the Complaint behind Ms. XXXXXX's Affidavit are exhibits of the Complaint and not exhibits of the Affidavit. Last, but not least, regarding the Affidavit, it appears to have been created in preparation for litigation, rather than at or near the time of the alleged sale of this account from Citibank to CACH LLC. The date of the alleged sale is August 23, 2011 while the date of the affidavit is August 13, 2012, one year after the alleged sale of this account and merely a few months before suit was filed. The next document that comes under scrutiny and should be excluded from evidence is the "Citibank Mastercard Cardmember Agreement" which is attached to the Plaintiff's Complaint as Exhibit B (Exhibit E). The Agreement submitted by Plaintiff and purported to control the account in question is an agreement governing only Citibank Canada accounts. The Defendant does not, and never has, lived in Canada or had a credit card associated with any Canadian company. Therefore, this Agreement should not be admissible as evidence. The submission of this Agreement attached to the Complaint also brings into question the trustworthiness of all of Plaintiff's records. Without a governing Agreement, it is impossible for the Court to ascertain the correctness of the calculation of interest for the account in question. While the credit card statements do contain an interest rate, there is no way to confirm that this is the correct interest rate governing the account in question without a valid and governing cardmember agreement. See Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. v. Heidebrink, 2009-Ohio-2931. Similarly, the "Bill of Sale and Assignment" (Exhibit F) provided to Defendant during discovery is insufficient to prove CACH's ownership of the account in question. The Bill of Sale makes no specific reference to the name or account number of the account allegedly transferred in this transaction. The redacted document attached to the Bill of Sale as Exhibit 1 (Exhibit G) does not offer sufficient proof that the account was sold. Also, the date of birth contained in Exhibit 1, July XX, 19XX, and purported to be that of the Defendant is clearly not the Defendant's date of birth and can be proved by the Defendant. Once again, the Plaintiff's records veer off into the territory of untrustworthiness. While it is necessary to remove account numbers and social security numbers associated with the other accounts in the document submitted to the Court, there is a plethora of information regarding those other accounts that could have been included to add to the authenticity of this document as evidence. That information was not included. The fact that the redacted document shows no other information about the other accounts sold in the transaction lends an air of untrustworthiness. It's possible this document was simply created solely for the purpose of litigation and not kept as an ordinary part of business and therefore, should not be admissible as evidence. This document is neither an original or a true duplicate. The trustworthiness of the Plaintiff's information is once again called into question due to the fact that the Plaintiff states in it's Complaint that it should receive interest of 3.0% beginning as of September XX, 2011, five days after it allegedly made it's first demand upon Defendant. However, in Plaintiff's Request for Admissions to Defendant (No. 21) (Exhibit H), Plaintiff indicates that "On or about May XX, 2012, Plaintiff, through counsel, sent a demand letter . . . indicating the transfer of ownership of the account" to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seems in doubt as to when a demand for payment was made. This is a discrepancy of eight months. Defendant also requests that the 13 credit card statements beginning with August 5, 2010 (Exhibit I) through August 5, 2011 (Exhibit J), provided to Defendant by Plaintiff during the course of discovery be excluded from evidence. Case law has shown that it is preferable that accounts begin with a balance of zero and show charges and interest rates accumlated along the way. These statements begin with a balance of $XXXXX and provide no evidence that this amount was true and correct, especially in light of no governing cardmember agreement. See Capital Fin. Credit, L.L.C. v. Mays, 191 Ohio App.3d 56, 2010-Ohio-4423. Last, but not least, it appears that Plaintiff is attempting to admit the records of another business under the hearsay law. These records are not those of Plaintiff, but are purported to be the records of Citibank. Therefore, they should not be admitted under the business records exception of hearsay law. A business cannot simply take the records of another company, drop them into their own file and call them their own business records without proper authentication, which Plaintiff does not provide via testimony or affidavit. See Great Seneca Financial v. Felty, 170 Ohio App.3d 737, 2006-Ohio-6618. In light of the evidence submitted above, Defendant requests that the aforementioned documents be excluded from admission at trial.