I explain things as simply as I can, and clients look at me bewildered and ask, "why can't we just do [overly simple answer]?"
A.) Please give me some credit. If I could "just" do something easily, then why would I go through all this other shit?
B.) I literally just told you why before you asked that question. There are numerous thick books on evidence rules and if you don't follow them, then you might get your evidence thrown the hell out.
C.) "Best evidence rule," Evid Rule 1001 et seq, says you can use a copy, but only after you explain why you don't have the original (and you have to do it according to evidence rule standards for proving you "lost" it). <-- This doesn't mean you can't use a copy; it means before you do, you have to explain why you don't have the original.
D.) If you don't follow this procedure then the court can raise a presumption that the reason you didn't produce the original document is that there is something bad on it that goes against you. This is bad, so follow the rule, because the penalty sucks and operates as a sort of ... proof against you.
E.) To prove you "lost" the document, you have to prove it existed in the first place and that you lost it through no fault of your own (that you're not hiding it). You can do this several ways.
I don't get why people look at me like I'm trying to burn them here. I'm trying to keep the other side from doing that....