New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Website Evidence — Basic Authentication

Download PDF

Estate of Konell v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10183 (D. Or. Jan. 28, 2014):

As one of its trial exhibits, plaintiffs has offered Exhibit 44 which is an 11-page Power Point presentation. The first page is titled "Columbia River Gorge, East Wind Storm, January 17th-19th 2009," presented by "Mark Nelsen, KPTV Ch. 12 Chief Meteorologist " to "Executive Councilor -- Oregon AMS."1 The remaining pages list maximum wind gusts reported at various locations and contain a photograph and various weather charts. According to plaintiff's attorney, this document is a printout of a posting on the internet. Defendant objects to this document as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802 and lack of authentication under FRE 901.

1   The Oregon AMS is the Oregon Chapter of the American Meteorological Society. See http://www.ametsoc.org/chapters/oregon/index.html (accessed January 28, 2014)

Plaintiff submitted this same document as Exhibit 3 in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment. In response to defendant's objection to its admissibility, plaintiff "clarified that it does not offer this report for the truth of its content, but only to show that the meteorological community referred to that weather event as a windstorm" (docket # 74). Given that limited purpose, this court overruled defendant's objection.

If evidence is offered for the truth of what it asserts, it is necessary to lay a foundation to admit it under an exception to the hearsay rule. Plaintiff does not rely on any hearsay exception, but, as before, argues that the website printout is not hearsay because it is offered not for the truth of the matter asserted, but is offered only to show that a meteorologist viewed the weather event as a windstorm. Since the term "windstorm" is not defined by the policy at issue, plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence as to the common meaning of that term. Adhering to its prior ruling, the exhibit is not hearsay when offered for this limited purpose.

[J]ust as for any other evidence, printouts from third-party websites are subject to the  [*3] authentication requirement of FRE 901, and authenticating such material can be a matter of some difficulty. To authenticate a printout of a web page, the proponent must offer evidence that: (1) the printout accurately reflects the computer image of the web page as of a specified date; (2) the website where the posting appears is owned or controlled by a particular person or entity; and (3) the authorship of the web posting is reasonably attributable to that person or entity. Evidence that may corroborate these points could include testimony of others who saw the posting on the website, continuation of the posting on the website so that it is available to be seen by the court, or evidence that the party to whom the posting is attributed made similar postings or published the same information elsewhere. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc., 213 F Supp2d 1146, 1154 (CD Cal 2002) (declarations that printouts were "true and correct" copies of internet pages, "in combination with circumstantial indicia of authenticity (such as the dates and web addresses)" would support reasonable juror belief that documents are what proponent claims); also see Johnson-Wooldridge v. Wooldridge, No. 00AP-1073, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 3319, 2001 WL 838986, at *4 (Ohio App July 26, 2001) (party who printed documents from a website "could have authenticated the documents himself via an affidavit or through his own testimony").

Plaintiff has submitted no evidence to authenticate this exhibit other than that the title page showing that it was authored by Mark Nelsen at some point after January 19, 2009. The exhibit has no other circumstantial indicia of authenticity, such as the date of the printout and the web address. Plaintiff notes that the website is no longer available for the court to verify, and it is unknown how long the data was posted on the site, whether others report having seen it, or the source of the underlying data.

Therefore, defendant's objection to Exhibit 44 based on lack of authentication under FRE 901 is sustained.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Sanctions Enforcement and Appealability: Failure to Pay Rule 37 Sanctions and Otherwise Comply with Discovery Orders Leads to Dismissal under Rule 41(b) — Second Circuit Factors for Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with Court Orders — Belated, Partial Compliance with Orders Does Not Deprive District Court of Discretion to Dismiss Based on Continuing Non-Compliance with Other Aspects of Orders — “Hopelessly Belated Compliance” with Court Orders Not Accorded Great Weight — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal under Rule 41(b) And Are Unreviewable

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: The “Intent to Deprive” Standard in Rule 37(e)(2) Is The Equivalent of Bad Faith in Other Spoliation Contexts — Bad Faith Generally Means Destruction For The Purpose Of Hiding Adverse Evidence — Mere Negligence Is Insufficient Because It Does Not Sustain An Inference of Consciousness of a Weak Case

Sanctions and Attorney-Client Privilege: Sham (Objectively Baseless, Bad Faith) Litigation for Antitrust Purposes Triggers Crime-Fraud Exception — Not All Frivolous Litigation Falls within Crime-Fraud Exception (But Some Sanctionable Behavior Clearly Does)

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice