Retail Svcs., 267 F3d 1068, 1091 (10th Cir. 2001) (noting that “one who prepares a document in anticipation of litigation is not acting in the regular course of business”). One of the foundational elements of OCGA § 24-8-803 (6) thus was not satisfied, and no presumption was created. See Ronald & Michael Scott Carlson, Carlson on Evidence, p. 546 (3d ed. 2015) (presumption of trustworthiness applies “[w]hen a party offers documentary evidence under Rule 803 (6) and establishes the requisite foundation for its admission”) (emphasis supplied). See also Rock, 922 F2d at 279 (presumption of trustworthiness “collapses” when document not prepared in the regular course of business) (citation and punctuation omitted); AAMCO Transmissions v. Baker, 591 FSupp.2d 788, 798 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (<HOLDING>). The majority also places undue emphasis on
holding that court erred in admitting letters written in anticipation of litigation as business records holding that letters addressing dispute that was subject of litigation and that were written in anticipation of litigation did not fall under business record exception under rule 8036 of the federal rules of evidence and noting that it is wellestablished that one who prepares a document in anticipation of litigation is not acting in the regular course of business holding that the assumption of reliability accuracy and trustworthiness underlying rule 803 6 did not apply where the party seeking admission of the memorandum at issue failed to show that it was created in the course of regularly conducted business activity and not in anticipation of litigation holding that the workproduct doctrine was inapplicable where there was no indication a memorandum was prepared in anticipation of litigation holding that documents that are created in the ordinary course of business or would have been created irrespective of litigation are not protected by the work product doctrine