Case Blurb: Lorraine; Consequences of Counsel’s lack of diligence with respect to articulating all grounds for admitting ESI
Posted by rjbiii on September 19, 2007
Establishing that ESI has some relevance generally is not hard for counsel. Articulating all of what may be multiple grounds of relevance is something that is important, though not as frequently done as it should be. Accordingly, evidence that might otherwise be admitted may be excluded because the proponent put all his or her eggs in a single evidentiary basket, which the trial judge views as inapplicable, instead of carefully identifying each potential basis for admissibility. Lorraine v. Markel Amer. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007).
Ironically, however, counsel often fail to meet even this minimal showing when attempting to introduce ESI, which underscores the need to pay careful attention to this requirement. Id.
Indeed, 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. Id.
Leave a Reply