Post Process

Everything to do with E-discovery & ESI

Archive for the ‘FRE 901’ Category

Case Blurb: Au Optronics Corp., Burden of Proof for Authentication is Slight

Posted by rjbiii on May 18, 2010

The testimony of a subscribing witness is not necessary to authenticate a writing unless required by the laws of the jurisdiction whose laws govern the validity of the writing.” Fed. R. Evid. 903. Authentication by circumstantial evidence, in lieu of testimony, is permissible. McQueeny v. Wilmington Trust Company, 779 F.2d 916, 928 (1985). Circumstantial evidence that may be considered includes, but is not limited to, the source of the document, its appearance, content, substance, internal pattern, distinctive characteristics, and its age. Fed. R. Evid. 901. “The burden of proof for authentication is slight. ‘All that is required is a foundation from which the fact-finder could legitimately infer that the evidence is what the proponent claims it to be.'” McQueeny, 779 F.2d at 928 (citations omitted).

In this case, the Court concludes that AUO has met its burden of authenticating the documents in question…

LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Au Optronics Corp., 265 F.R.D. 189, 196 (D. Del. 2010)

Posted in 3d Circuit, Authentication, Case Blurbs, D. Del., FRE 901, Judge Joseph A. Farnan Jr. | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb: Lorraine; ESI may be authenticated by witness with personal knowledge of the data

Posted by rjbiii on September 17, 2007

Courts considering the admissibility of electronic evidence frequently have acknowledged that it may be authenticated by a witness with personal knowledge. Lorraine v. Markel Amer. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007).

  • (referencing United States v. Kassimu, 2006 WL 1880335 (5th Cir. May 12, 2006) (ruling that copies of a post office’s computer records could be authenticated by a custodian or other qualified witness with personal knowledge of the procedure that generated the records));
  • (referencing St. Luke’s, 2006 WL 1320242 at *3-4 (“To authenticate printouts from a website, the party proffering the evidence must produce ‘some statement or affidavit from someone with knowledge [of the website] … for example [a] web master or someone else with personal knowledge would be sufficient.’ ” (citation omitted)))
  • (referencing Safavian, 435 F.Supp.2d at 40 n. 2 (D.D.C.2006) (noting that e-mail may be authenticated by a witness with knowledge that the exhibit is what it is claimed to be));
  • (referencing Wady, 216 F. Supp 2d 1060 (sustaining objection to affidavit of plaintiff’s witness attempting to authenticate documents taken from the defendant’s website because the affiant lacked personal knowledge of who maintained the website or authored the documents)).

Posted in 3d Circuit, 4th Circuit, Admissibility of ESI, Authentication, Case Blurbs, D. Md., Data Custodians, FRE 901, Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm | Leave a Comment »