This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.
Here's a plain English summary:
If you want to prove what a document, recording, or photo says, you can use the other side's own words against them. This means you can point to something the opposing party said in testimony, during a deposition, or in a written statement where they described or admitted to the content of that document, recording, or photo.
The good news for the person using this rule is that they don't have to explain why they don't have the original item. Normally, courts want to see the actual document or recording, or get a good reason why it's not available. But this rule creates a shortcut: if the other party has already talked about what's in the writing, recording, or photo, their own statement can be used to prove its content, no questions asked about the missing original.
This rule makes sense because if someone already admitted what a document or recording contains, there's less worry about accuracy or fairness. They can't later complain that the original wasn't shown to the court, since their own words already confirmed what it said.
