ORDER

KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, Magistrate Judge.

On October 14, 2015, the United States filed a Motion in Limine for Admission of Business Records under Rule 902(11). ECF No. 239. On October 21, 2015, Defendant John James Kash raised objections to admission of documents Bates Numbered 807-832, 1007, 1008-1010, 2408-2416, 2436, 2827, 7939-7958, 7959-7963, 7967, 7971, 7975, 7978, 7981, 7986, 8006, 8009, 8036, 10019-10023, and 10024. ECF No. 247. In response, the United States withdrew its motion for a pretrial ruling as to the documents objected to by defendant, except for documents Bates Numbered 7939-7958. ECF No. 254. The court held a hearing on the matter on October 28, 2015, at which defendant John James Kash appeared pro se with standby defense counsel Gregory Foster; Christiaan Highsmith and Justin Lee appeared for the United States.

At the hearing, the court ruled that the unopposed documents are self-authenticating under Federal Rule of Evidence 902(11) and are admissible under the Rule 803(6) exception to the hearsay rule. The court also granted the United States' motion as to the contested surveillance video and photographs from Century Heritage, Bates Numbered 7939-7958, because the court determined that they were made in the normal course of business under Rule 803(6). The United States will redact any handwritten notes that appear to have been entered after the creation of the records subject to this motion. Defendant is not precluded from challenging the admissibility of the records subject to this motion on other grounds, such as relevance or under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.

The United States' motion has been decided based upon the record presently before the court. The ruling is made without prejudice and is subject to proper renewal, in whole or in part, during trial. If a party wishes to contest a pretrial ruling, it must do so through a proper motion or objection, or otherwise forfeit appeal on such grounds. See Fed. R. Evid. 103(a); Tennison v. Circus Circus Enters., Inc., 244 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) ("Where a district court makes a tentative in limine ruling excluding evidence, the exclusion of that evidence may only be challenged on appeal if the aggrieved party attempts to offer such evidence at trial." (alteration, citation and quotation omitted)).

In sum, the court granted the United States' motion for admission of the following business records:

IT IS SO ORDERED.