Short answer. You may not need the original. Section 3 of Rule 130 lists exceptions to the original-document rule, including when the original is not closely-related to a controlling issue. If your document genuinely fits that description, that exception can let you use secondary evidence instead of the original itself.
What the law says
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, writing, recording, photograph or other record, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases
Rule 130, Section 3 — Original document must be produced; exceptions. Read the full provision →
What the law says
When the original is not closely-related to a controlling issue.
Rule 130, Section 3 — Original document must be produced; exceptions. Read the full provision →
Why the original-document rule exists in the first place
The rule requiring the original when a document's contents are what matters exists to prevent disputes over accuracy — a copy can be altered, mistranscribed, or incomplete in ways the original is not. That concern is strongest when the document's exact wording will decide the case. Section 3's exceptions, including the one for a document not closely related to a controlling issue, recognize that the concern weakens once the document is genuinely peripheral to what is actually being contested.
The default rule you are trying to get around
Section 3 sets a strict starting point when a document's contents are what matters. When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, writing, recording, photograph or other record, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases. Ordinarily, the original is what the rule demands — but that opening clause also signals that specific, named exceptions exist.
The exception built for a peripheral document
One of the five exceptions Section 3 lists matches exactly what you describe: When the original is not closely-related to a controlling issue. If the document's contents are not closely tied to a controlling issue in your case — meaning they are not central to what the case actually turns on — that exception can let you rely on something other than the original.
How this differs from the other listed exceptions
Most of Section 3's exceptions turn on why the original is unavailable — lost, destroyed, or in another party's control. This exception is different: it does not depend on the original being hard to get at all. It depends instead on how important the document's exact contents are to the issues the case is actually contesting, which is a separate question from availability.
What you would still need to establish
Fitting this exception requires more than your own sense that the document is unimportant — it requires the document to genuinely be unrelated to a controlling issue in the case, as distinct from being merely one piece of supporting context among several. Whether a particular document meets that description depends on how the case's controlling issues are actually framed, not on a general impression that the document is minor, so it is worth thinking through how the document connects, or fails to connect, to what the case will ultimately decide.