documents offered as substitutes were true and correct copies of the trial exhibits. The dealership produced no evidence tending to show that any of the duplicate exhibits was not a correct copy. Arguing that thousands of documents had been produced during discovery and many of these documents were confusingly similar, the dealership made a running objection to all of the substituted exhibits. Comparing the substituted documents to their corresponding descriptions in the original statement of facts, we find that the substituted exhibits are substantially the same as the original trial exhibits. None of the dealership’s objections create serious doubts about the authenticity, accuracy, or completeness of the substitutes. See, e.g., Owens-Illinois, No. B14-91-00539-CV, slip op. at 20, 24 (<HOLDING>); Adams, 845 S.W.2d at 326 (finding that the
holding appellant is not entitled to a new trial unless the reporters notes have been lost or destroyed without appellants fault and the parties cannot agree on a statement of facts holding that the appellant was entitled to a new trial since he did not agree to the substituted exhibits and alternatively because the substituted exhibits were incomplete and of questionable accuracy holding that because judge who was substituted for posttrial motions erred in finding that trial court judge made mistake of law grant of new trial was error holding that because appellant did not become a party by intervention before judgment was rendered appellant may not extend the time to appeal by filing a motion for new trial holding defendant sold investment contracts when it substituted new investors money for real investment return on old investors funds