1. In order for the plaintiff to testify to the appearance of the model, the plaintiff

The best evidence rule is more accurately called the «original document rule.» The rule is as follows: In proving the terms of a writing (recording, photograph, or X-ray), where the terms are material, the original writing must be produced. Secondary evidence of the writing, such as oral testimony regarding the writing's contents, is permitted only after it has been shown that the original is unavailable for some reason other than serious misconduct of the proponent. Fed. R. Evid. 1002.

D is correct. The best evidence rule is only applicable to writings, recordings, photographs, or X-rays, and the robot falls under none of those categories. Therefore, there is no need to satisfy the best evidence rule by showing it was not destroyed in bad faith, or by giving advance notice of the intent to give oral testimony about it, or by introducing a photograph of it if one exists. Because the plaintiff has personal knowledge of the appearance of the model, he can testify without having to introduce the model into evidence.

A is incorrect. The plaintiff would have to show that the original model is unavailable for a reason other than misconduct if the best evidence rule were to apply. However, because the best evidence rule does not apply here, there is no requirement that the plaintiff must show a lack of bad faith.

B is incorrect. The plaintiff would have to give advance notice of his intent to give oral testimony regarding the appearance of the model if the best evidence rule were to apply. However, because it does not apply, there is no such requirement.

C is incorrect. For the reasons explained above, the best evidence rule does not apply, and therefore the plaintiff is under no obligation to introduce a photograph of the model if one existed.