This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.
If you want to prove what a document, recording, or photo says, you can normally use the actual original or a good explanation for why you don't have it. But this rule creates an exception. If the other side in a case has admitted what the document, recording, or photo says (whether through their own testimony, a deposition, or something they wrote), you can use that admission as proof instead. You don't need to explain why you don't have the original item itself.
This makes sense because if someone already admitted what a document says, there's no real dispute about its contents. For example, if the other party said in a deposition "yes, the contract said I would pay $5,000," you can use that statement to prove what the contract said. You don't have to track down the actual contract or explain why you can't produce it. This saves time and avoids unnecessary arguments about missing paperwork when the other side has already told you what it contained.
