In a time of dramatic change it is the learners who inherit the future. The learned usually find themselves equipped to live in a world that no longer exists. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – In a time of dramatic change it is the learners who inherit the future. The learned usually find themselves equipped to live in a world that no longer exists. PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 4f668b-YTgxN



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

In a time of dramatic change it is the learners who inherit the future. The learned usually find themselves equipped to live in a world that no longer exists.

Description:

* * * * * * * Will you allow this enhancement? Can you place any limitations on this situation? Are there any due process considerations? * * * * * * Will you ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:188
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 93
Provided by: smo95
Learn more at: http://aja.ncsc.dni.us
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: In a time of dramatic change it is the learners who inherit the future. The learned usually find themselves equipped to live in a world that no longer exists.


1
(No Transcript)
2
  • In a time of dramatic change it is the learners
    who inherit the future. The learned usually find
    themselves equipped to live in a world that no
    longer exists.
  • Eric Hoffer,
  • American Writer (1920-1983)

2
3
Takeaway
ESI raises distinct evidentiary issues (because
it can be altered from its original form)
Traditional rules of evidence are flexible enough
to deal with ESI The evidentiary rules as
applied to ESI Suggested pre-trial procedures
Metadata can be helpful in determining the
authenticity of ESI 11 Step Foundation for
Computer Records Differences between ESI and
EGI and why it matters
3
4
Elements of E-Discovery
4
5
Definition
  • Electronically-stored information (ESI)
  • Information created, manipulated, communicated,
    stored, and best utilized in digital form,
    requiring the use of computer hardware and
    software.

5
6
How E-Discovery is Different
  • 1. Volume
  • 2. Variety of sources
  • 3. Dynamic quality
  • 4. Hidden information Metadata
  • 5. Environment Dependence and Obsolescence
  • 6. Deleting doesnt delete it

7
1.ESI Volume is High
  • 95 of the worlds information is generated in
    digital format.
  • 79 of American adults used the Internet in 2009.
  • An employee at a large company will receive and
    send 50-100 emails daily.

8
2. Variety of Sources
  • Word processing documents, emails, voice mails,
    instant message logs, backup tapes, blogs,
    database files
  • Computer hard drives, network servers, personal
    digital assistants
  • Magnetic tapes, CD-ROMs, floppy discs, zip
    drives, digital phones, iPads and iPods

9
9
10
10
11
2. Variety of Sources
  • Recent Trend Social/Professional Networking Sites

12
Facebook
2. Variety of Sources
  • More than 500 million active users
  • 50 of active users log on to Facebook in any
    given day
  • Users spend over 700 billion minutes per month on
    Facebook
  • Facebook users upload about 3 billion photos per
    month

13
MySpace
2. Variety of Sources
  • More than 122 million monthly active users around
    the globe (70 million in US)
  • 100,000 signups every day
  • Processes 46 million activities and updates daily

14
LinkedIn
2. Variety of Sources
  • Professional networking site
  • Over 75 million users
  • Executives from all Fortune 500 companies are
    LinkedIn members

15
Twitter
2. Variety of Sources
  • Over 100 million users
  • 300,000 new users each day
  • 65 million tweets posted each day

16
3. Dynamic Quality
  • Paper documents are in effect immutable once put
    on paper, but
  • ESI is not fixed or in a final form
  • Modifications can happen without human
    intervention and are not easily detectable
  • As a result, there is not always a clear original
    version of ESI

17
4. Hidden InformationMetadata
  • Definition data about data not readily apparent
    on the screen view of the file.
  • Information about the document that is recorded
    by the computer to assist in storing and
    retrieving.
  • Usually not created by or easily accessible to
    the computer user.

17
18
5. Environment Dependence and Obsolescence
  • ESI can often be read only with special software.
  • Raw data without the special structure will
    appear incomprehensible
  • But to make comprehensible, it might lose
    functionality
  • Legacy data might have been retained, but is now
    difficult to access

18
19
6. Deleting ESI Doesnt Delete It
  • Deleted or backup information may still be
    available, just not easily accessible.
  • Deleting from a hard drive is like removing a
    card from the card catalog the book (the
    information itself) remains until its removed to
    make room for a new book.

20
II. Evidentiary Issues raised by ESI
21
Admissibility of Electronically Stored Information
  • Little has been written about what is required to
    ensure that ESI obtained in discovery will be
    admitted in trial
  • It makes little sense to go to the cost and
    effort to obtain ESI in discovery if a sufficient
    foundation cannot be established to get it
    admitted.

21
22
No Need For Special ESI Evidence Rules
  • We see no justification for constructing unique
    rules for admissibility of electronic
    communications such as instant messages they are
    to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as any
    other document to determine whether or not there
    has been an adequate foundational showing of
    their relevance and authenticity.
  • In Re F.P., 878 A.2d 91, 96 (Pa. Super. Ct.
    2005).

22
23
  • In general, the Federal Rules of Evidence apply
    to computerized data as they do to other types of
    evidence. Computerized data, however, raise
    unique issues concerning accuracy and
    authenticity.
  • Manual for Complex Litigation (4th) 11.446

23
24
  • Accuracy may be impaired by incomplete data
    entry, mistakes in output instructions,
    programming errors, damage and contamination of
    storage media, power outages, and equipment
    malfunctions.
  • Manual for Complex Litigation (4th) 11.446

24
25
Impaired Accuracy of ESI
  • Incomplete data entry
  • Mistakes in output instructions
  • Programming errors
  • Damage and contamination
  • Power outages
  • Equipment malfunctions

25
26
  • The integrity of data may also be compromised in
    the course of discovery by improper search and
    retrieval techniques, data conversion, or
    mishandling.
  • Manual for Complex Litigation (4th) 11.446

26
27
  • The proponent of computerized evidence has the
    burden of laying a proper foundation by
    establishing its accuracy. The judge should
    therefore consider the accuracy and reliability
    of computerized evidence, including any necessary
    discovery during pretrial proceedings, so that
    challenges to the evidence are not made for the
    first time at trial.
  • Manual for Complex Litigation (4th) 11.446

27
28
The Evidentiary Challenges Raised by ESI
  • The existing rules were adopted before ESI issues
    existed
  • The forms of digital and electronic evidence
    regularly and quickly change
  • Evidence can be altered from its original form

28
29
Evidentiary Rules Triggered By ESI
  • Preliminary and Conditional Rulings
  • Relevance
  • Authentication
  • Hearsay
  • Original Writing
  • Compare Probative Value and Risk of Prejudice

30
Evidentiary Rules (Federal)
  • F.R.E. 104(a) and (b)
  • F.R.E. 401
  • F.R.E. 901(a)
  • F.R.E. 801, et seq.
  • F.R.E. 1000-1008
  • F.R.E. 403

30
31
  • III. Preliminary Rulings

31
32
F.R.E. 104 (a) and (b)
  • HOW THEY WORK TOGETHER
  • RULE 104 Preliminary Questions
  • (a) Questions of admissibility generally.
  • Preliminary questions concerning the
    qualification of a person to be a witness,
    existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of
    evidence shall be determined by the court,
    subject to the provisions of subdivision (b). In
    making its determination it is not bound by the
    rules of evidence except those with respect to
    privileges.

32
33
F.R.E. 104(a) and (b)
  • HOW THEY WORK TOGETHER
  • RULE 104(a)
  • Do facts presented support preliminary
    admissibility?
  • Its a preliminary determination of admissibility
  • Made by the Court
  • Not required to apply rules of evidence (except
    privilege)
  • Qualified by Rule 104(b)

33
34
F.R.E. 104 (a) and (b)
  • HOW THEY WORK TOGETHER
  • RULE 104(b) Relevancy conditioned on fact.
  • When the relevancy of evidence depends upon
    the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the court
    shall admit it upon, or subject to, the
    introduction of evidence sufficient to support a
    finding of the fulfillment of the condition.

34
35
F.R.E. 104(a) and (b)
  • HOW THEY WORK TOGETHER
  • RULE 104(b)
  • - Jury makes factual findings necessary to
  • determine admissibility
  • - The facts introduced must be admissible under
  • rules of evidence

35
36
F.R.E. 104(a) and (b)
  • HOW THEY WORK TOGETHER
  • Example Counsel offers E-mail into evidence
  • 104(a) Judge decides whether e-mail is
  • hearsay
  • an admission of party opponent
  • business record
  • 104(b) Jury decides whether e-mail is
  • authentic (what it purports to be)

36
37
  • IV. Authentication

37
38
Authenticating ESI
  • Arguably the biggest evidentiary challenge for
    ESI
  • Why?
  • Because ESI is easily created, altered, and
    manipulated, either accidentally or intentionally

39
Authenticating ESI
  • It is possible to create a Web page on a
    social networking site in another persons name
    or to send an e-mail or post a message in
    anothers name. Therefore, it is difficult to
    show who actually is responsible for creating
    material on the Internet.
  • Levine Swatski-Lebson, "Social Networking And
    Litigation," e-Commerce Law Strategy (Jan. 2009)

39
40
Authenticating ESI
  • Authentication is a threshold preliminary
    standard to test the reliability of the evidence,
    subject to later review by . . .
    cross-examination. Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins.
    Co., 241 F.R.D. 534, 544 (D. Md. 2007)

41
Authenticating ESI
  • Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) proponent must offer
    evidence sufficient to support a finding that
    the matter in question is what the proponent
    claims.

41
42
Authenticating ESI
  • Its a low hurdle
  • Could a reasonable juror find in favor of
    authenticity? United States v. Gagliardi, 506
    F.3d 140, 151 (2d Cir. 2007)
  • Is there a rational basis for fact finder to
    conclude the matter is authentic? People v.
    Downin, 828 N.E.2d 341, 350 (Ill. Ct. App. 2005)

42
43
Authenticating ESI
  • The inability to get evidence admitted because
    of a failure to authenticate it almost always is
    a self-inflicted injury which can be avoided by
    thoughtful advance preparation. Lorraine, 241
    F.R.D. at 542

43
44
Authenticating ESI
  • Courts have wrestled with authentication of
    electronic evidence
  • Decisions on both sides of almost any question

45
Authenticating ESI
  • Best-case scenario Stipulation
  • Encourage (pressure) parties to stipulate to
    authenticity of ESI
  • Often no legitimate challenge to authenticity
  • Saves time/money for the Court and parties

46
Authenticating ESI
  • Next-best alternative Admission
  • Express admission (request for admission, in
    deposition, at trial)
  • Failure to object (courts generally have
    discretion to consider evidence where there is no
    objection)

46
47
Useful ESI Evidentiary Procedures
  • All ESI identified pre-trial
  • ESI evidence highlighted to opposing side before
    trial
  • Parties directed to stipulate where
    appropriate
  • Pre-trial offers of proof on disputed ESI
    exhibits
  • Foundational witnesses identified on ESI exhibits
  • Parties directed to confer to submit joint
    cautionary jury instructions
  • In camera proceedings during trial

47
48
ESI In Camera
  • 1. In camera hearing addressing authenticity does
    not replace the presentation of authenticating
    evidence before the jury.
  • 2. The Court must revisit the authenticating
    evidence at trial.
  • 3. Even though the Court may have ruled in camera
    that the proponent has presented sufficient
    evidence to support a finding that the evidence
    is authentic, that authenticating evidence must
    be presented again to the jury before the
    evidence may be admitted. United States v.
    Branch, 970 F.2d 1368 (4th Cir. 1992).

48
49
Authenticating ESI
  • E-mail and electronic communication
  • Testimony of a witness with knowledge -
  • FRE 901(b)(1)
  • No special expert or computer knowledge needed
    (witness need not have programmed or even
    understand technical operation of computer)
  • A witness who sent or received an email can
    identify it as such
  • Other witnesses who have seen the email in
    electronic form can testify that it is an
    accurate reproduction

50
Authenticating ESI
  • E-mail and electronic communication
  • Comparison by trier or expert
  • -FRE 901(b)(3)
  • Expert or fact finder may compare the offered
    document with one that has been independently
    authenticated.

51
Authenticating ESI
  • E-mail and electronic communication
  • Comparison by trier or expert -FRE 901(b)(3)
  • E-mail messages that are not clearly
    identifiable on their own can be authenticated .
    . . by comparison by the trier of fact (the jury)
    with . . . those e-mails that already have been
    independently authenticated.
  • - United States v. Safavian, 435 F. Supp. 2d 36,
    40 (D.D.C. 2006)

51
52
Authenticating ESI
  • E-mail and electronic communication
  • Distinctive Characteristics -FRE 901(b)(4)
  • Frequently used to authenticate e-mail.
  • Authentication based on appearance, contents,
    substance, internal patterns, or other
    distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction
    with circumstances.
  • Examples listed as sender/recipient, email
    address, information that only the purported
    sender would know, use of nicknames, etc.

53
Authenticating ESI
  • E-mail and electronic communication
  • Other approaches
  • Technical expert to trace e-mail through servers
    that handled it. FRE 901(b)(9)
  • Technical expert to explain encryption process
    for encrypted emails. FRE 901(b)(9)
  • Reply doctrine purported reply to an earlier
    email is likely authored by original recipient
  • For text messages (Short Message Service or SMS)
    subpoena records kept by transmitting
    communications company for comparison

54
Authenticating ESI
  • Internet Websites (print-outs)
  • Three steps (establish with 901(b)(1), (3), or
    (4))
  • Printed page accurately reflects computer image
    of the website as of a certain date
  • Website is owned or controlled by a particular
    person or entity
  • Authorship is reasonably attributed to that
    person or entity

55
Authenticating ESI
  • Internet Websites (print-outs)
  • Whealan v. Hartford Life Accident Ins. Co.,
    2007 WL 1891175 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (court held that
    URL address and date stamp insufficient.)
  • Bowers v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va.,
    2007 WL 2963818 (W.D. Va. 2007) (court rejected
    counsels personal affidavit which attempted to
    authenticate webpages)

55
56
Authenticating ESI
  • Internet Websites (print-outs)
  • Corroboration witness who viewed the website
    internet archive (wayback machine) plus an
    expert evidence of partys similar postings
    elsewhere 901(b)(4) evidence

56
57
Authenticating ESI
  • Using the Way-Back Machine TM, plaintiff wishes
    to admit printout of the web pages of a company
    as they appeared years earlier.
  • Ruling  Plaintiff needs an affidavit of
    www.archive.org representative with personal
    knowledge, verifying that the tendered printouts
    are accurate copy of Internet Archives (IA)
    records.  A general affidavit of IA works is not
    enough.  St. Lukes Cataract Laser Institute v.
    Sanderson, 2006 WL 1320242 (M.D. Fla. 2006)

57
58
Authenticating ESI
  • Social Networking Sites
  • Essentially identical to Web page authentication
  • Testimony of witness with knowledge can
    authenticate -Adams v. Disbennett 2008 WL 4615623
  • Further substantiation with technological markers
    (Internet address, date time stamp, etc.)
  • At least one court has quashed subpoenas seeking
    private messages from Facebook and MySpace host
    companies as protected by Stored Communications
    Act, 18 U.S.C. 2701-12. Crispin v. Christian
    Audigier Inc., 2010 WL 2293238 (C.D. Cal. May 26,
    2010)

59
Issue
  • Plaintiff attempts to use the metadata on
    relevant emails (data about data) to authenticate
    the emails.

59
60
Rule
  • Metadata, commonly described as data about
    data, is defined as information describing the
    history, tracking, or management of an electronic
    document. Lorraine, 241 F.R.D. at 547.

60
61
F.R.E. 901(b)(4)
  • An adequate authentication can be made through
    the identification of distinctive
    characteristics, such as appearance, contents,
    substance, internal patterns, or other
    distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction
    with circumstances.

61
62
Authenticity of Computer-stored Records (EXAMPLE)
  • Witness testifies
  • 1. That the subject exhibit was printed from the
    companys computer system.
  • 2. That he knows the computer equipment is DELL
    equipment.
  • 3. That he knows the name of the computer program
    used by the company is MS Office.
  • That he used the companys program and the
    companys computer to print out the subject
    exhibit.
  • Proponent Moves for admission of computer
    printout.
  • Opponent Objects hearsay, lack of foundation,
    lack of authenticity.

62
63
Voir Dire on Computer-stored Records
Its true that
  • 1. You did not enter any of the data on the
    printout into the computer system?
  • 2. You do not know who did enter the data into
    the computer system?
  • You cannot testify as to the accuracy of the data
    entered into the system?
  • 4. You do not know how the computer program
    works?
  • 5. You are not the custodian of the computer
    records?

63
64
Voir Dire on Computer-stored Records (2)
  • 6. You do not know the companys policies or
    procedures for the use of the computer?
  • 7. You do not know how access to the computer is
    controlled?
  • 8. You do not know whether there have been any
    changes in the database or whether any such
    changes are logged or recorded?
  • 9. You do not know whether the company has any
    type of audit program to ensure the continuing
    integrity of the database?

64
65
  • Eleven-step Foundation for
  • Computer Records

(a la Professor Imwinkelried) 1.
The business uses a computer. 2. The computer is
reliable. 3. The business has developed a
procedure for inserting data into the
computer. 4. The procedure has built-in
safeguards to ensure accuracy and identify
errors. 5. The business keeps the computer in a
good state of repair. 6. The witness had the
computer read out certain data. 7. The witness
used the proper procedures to obtain the
readout. 8. The computer was in working order at
the time the witness obtained the readout. 9. The
witness recognizes the exhibit as the
readout. 10. The witness explains how he or she
recognizes the readout. 11. If the readout
contains strange symbols or terms, the witness
explains the meaning of the symbols or terms for
the trier of fact. Imwinkelried, Evidentiary
Foundations 4.03 2.
65
66
  • V. Hearsay

66
67
Hearsay
  • Four Steps to Evaluating ESI Hearsay
  • Is it a statement by a declarant?
  • Is it offered for its truth?
  • Is it excluded from hearsay by 801(d)?
  • Prior statement of testifying witness
  • Admission by party opponent
  • Is there an applicable exception?

68
Hearsay - statement by declarant?
  • Statement (1) oral or written assertion or (2)
    nonverbal conduct of a person intended as
    assertion. Fed. R. Evid. 801(a)
  • Declarant must be a person. Fed. R. Evid.
    801(b)

69
Hearsay - statement by declarant?
  • Important distinction Electronically stored
    v. electronically generated information
  • Not always recognized by courts
  • United States v. Blackburn, 992 F.2d 666 (7th
    Cir. 1993) (court assumed computer-generated
    printout was hearsay but found it admissible
    under hearsay exception)

69
70
Hearsay - statement by declarant?
  • Nothing said by a machine . . . is hearsay.
  • United States v. Washington, 498 F.3d 225, 231
    (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting 4 Mueller
    Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence 380 (2d ed.
    1994)).

70
71
Hearsay - statement by declarant?
  • Electronically stored information
    human-created, stored electronically
  • May be hearsay
  • Examples
  • Email text
  • Letters and other word processing documents
  • Social network messages or posts
  • Facebook messages raises issues of hearsay.
    Maldonado v. Municipality of Barceloneta, 2009
    U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19842 at 2 n.2 (DPR 2009)
  • Chat room conversations
  • Text messages

72
Hearsay - statement by declarant?
  • Electronically generated information created by
    a computer process or system
  • Examples
  • Most metadata
  • Email headers
  • GPS data
  • A fax machine generated report of transmission
  • A list of calls made from a cellphone
    showing time of call,
  • phone number called, length of call.

73
Hearsay - statement by declarant?
  • Some electronic information is a mixture of
    electronically stored and electronically
    generated information
  • Spreadsheets with automatic calculations
  • Chat room logs
  • Emails with content and header
  • This mixed information implicates hearsay
    rules, at least as to the human-generated
    statements

74
  • The Threshold Issue of Admissibility of EGI
  • Is it exempt from the hearsay rule?
  • Is it hearsay?
  • Does it fall within a hearsay exemption?

74
75
  • Argument why EGI is not hearsay
  • It is not a statement of a person
  • Argument why EGI is hearsay
  • It is an out-of-court statement (of a machine)
    being introduced to prove the matter asserted.

75
76
  • Issue
  • The theory that EGI is not hearsay is not
    based on a notion that it is more reliable than
    other types of information.
  • In fact, if no person is required to testify
    to its creation, who is cross-examined on the
    broad issues of reliability?

76
77
  • If EGI is Treated as Non-hearsay
  • It is treated as if it is trustworthy, when it
    may not be.
  • It escapes the gate-keeping function of hearsay
    rules.
  • EGI thereby becomes a prime candidate for
    E-discovery.
  • It becomes admissible against a person or
    corporation that may not have created it even
    known or was created.
  • Note Statements must still be reliable under
    authentication rules (e.g., product of a system
    capable of producing reliable result)

77
78
  • Issue
  • If EGI is treated as hearsay
  • It is the machine that is the Declarant
  • Who should be the witness?
  • A person knowledgeable about how this
    computer compiled and generated this information?
  • The software or a software programmer who
    created the instructions allegedly followed by
    the machine?
  • A person from the business or home who has
  • possession of the document?
  • Nobody treated as hearsay within the
    business record or treated as a business record?

78
79
  • Problems with Using the Business Records
    Exception to Admit EGI Against a Party
  • The party did not create the EGI
  • The party may not have even known it was
    created
  • The machines programming was created by a
    non-agent non-employee not responsible to the
    party
  • The record is often not knowingly kept by the
    business
  • The EGI may serve no business purpose

79
80
  • EGI is an Admission Under Application of
    801(d)(2)
  • While a partys e-mail might come in as a
    statement against interest, why would that apply
    to a computer-generated information?
  • (A) Not the partys statement or
  • (B) Party has not necessarily adopted it or
  • Not made by a person authorized to make
  • that statement or
  • (D) Not made by a partys agent?

80
81
If we treat the machine as a Declarant, why
should the machines testimony be attributed to
its owner?
  • The owner had virtually zero to do with the
  • creation of data or software.
  • The owner cannot be said to be responsible
  • for the information the machine is not his
  • agent or employee.
  • If the computer is not the Declarant of EGI,
  • there is no statement of a witness.  What is
  • the admissibility based on?

81
82
  • Are we ready to call our
  • computers our agents?
  •  

82
83
Hearsay ESI Exceptions
  • Business Records Exemption
  • Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)
  • Record must be (1) contemporaneously made and (2)
    kept in the normal and ordinary course of
    business
  • Must relate to the business, not the individuals
    personal use
  • Note the actual physical printout can be created
    in anticipation of litigation the exemption
    refers to the underlying data

83
84
Hearsay ESI Exceptions
  • Business Records Exemption
  • Caveat unless the source of the information or
    the method or circumstances of preparation
    indicate lack of trustworthiness
  • Easily overlooked
  • Must show reliability of the system producing the
    information

85
Issue
E-mail chains as business records. F.R.E. 803(6)
  • Plaintiff offers e-mail chain. Witness says its
    his regular practice to send an e-mail
    summarizing phone calls he receives.
  • No showing that it was the regular practice of
    the employer to require that the employee make
    and maintain such e-mails.
  • No testimony that this was the practice of all
    others in the chain.

85
86
How would you rule?
  • What if the source of the original information
    was an outsider?

86
87
  • New York v. Microsoft Corp., 2002 WL 649951
    (D.D.C. 2002)
  • Analyzed the admissibility of series of exhibits
    including e-mail and e-mail chains under
    various hearsay exceptions, and ruling that an
    e-mail prepared several days after a telephone
    call that described the call did not qualify as a
    present sense impression under Rule 803(1)
    because the requirement of contemporaneity was
    not met.

87
88
  • Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG, 348 F.Supp.2d
    698 (E.D. Va. 2004) (each participant in an
    e-mail chain must be acting in the course of
    regularly conducted business)

88
89
  • In contrast to the demanding approach taken in
    Rambus and New York v. Microsoft, the court in
    United States v. Safavian took a more flexible
    approach to the admissibility of e-mail chains.
    435 F.Supp.2d 36, 40-41 (D.D.C.2006). The
    defendant objected to the admissibility of e-mail
    chains, arguing that they were not trustworthy
    because they contained e-mails embedded within
    e-mails. The court overruled this objection,
    stating
  • the defendants argument is more appropriately
    directed to the weight the jury should give the
    evidence, not its authenticity. While the
    defendant is correct that earlier e-mails that
    are included in a chain-either as ones that have
    been forwarded or to which another has
    replied-may be altered, this trait is not
    specific to e-mail evidence. It can be true of
    any piece of documentary evidence, such as a
    letter, a contract or an invoice. . . . The
    possibility of alteration does not and cannot be
    the basis for excluding e-mails as unidentified
    or unauthenticated as a matter of course. . . .
    We live in an age of technology and computer use
    where e-mail communication now is a normal and
    frequent fact for the majority of the nations
    population and is of particular importance in the
    professional world. . . . Absent specific
    evidence showing alteration, however, the Court
    will not exclude any embedded e-mails because of
    the mere possibility that it can be done.

89
90
Hearsay ESI Exceptions
  • Public Records Exemption
  • Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)
  • Documents prepared by public office or agency
    deemed trustworthy
  • Particularly important as to information from
    government websites

91
Hearsay ESI Exceptions
  • Present Sense Impression, Excited Utterance, or
    Then-Existing Condition
  • Fed. R. Evid. 803(1), (2), and (3)
  • Particularly important as to social networking
    messages and text messages
  • We should be able to find some good Facebook or
    Twitter examples for this

92
Summary
ESI raises distinct evidentiary issues (because
it can be altered from its original form)
Traditional rules of evidence are flexible enough
to deal with ESI The evidentiary rules as
applied to ESI Suggested pre-trial procedures
Metadata can be helpful in determining the
authenticity of ESI 11 Step Foundation for
Computer Records Differences between ESI and
EGI and why it matters
92
About PowerShow.com