Email Authentication — Emails Produced in Discovery when Offered by Party Opponent Deemed Authentic
Frehner v. Clark Cnty. School Dist., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44788 (D. Nev. Mar. 31, 2014):
Footnote 4 Frehner submitted copies of purported e-mails between he and various officials with the Nevada Department of Education ("NDOE") in August 2011 and May 2012 concerning his department assignment. (Frehner Ex. 7, Dkt. No. 33 at 36-39.) These e-mails were not authenticated and thus the Court cannot consider them. Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002) ("A trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment."). The parties do not state in their briefs whether the emails were produced in the course of discovery, which might satisfy the authenticity requirement. See Maljack Prods., Inc. v. GoodTimes Home Video Corp., 81 F.3d 881, 889 n. 12 (9th Cir. 1996) (documents produced by a party in discovery were deemed authentic when offered by the party-opponent). The same is true for the purported e-mails between Frehner and several District officials about the same subject matter. (Frehner Ex. 12, Dkt. No. 33 at 60-62.) Thus, the Court [*5] cannot consider these documents.
Share this article: