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

Judicial Notice of Geographical Internet Evidence — Travel Distances to One Address from Various Locations — Drawn from Google Maps, World Atlas.com, MapQuest, Yahoo

Download PDF

Va. Innovation Sci., Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44758 (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2014):

A. Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice

Federal Rule of Evidence 201 "governs judicial notice of . . . adjudicative fact[s]." Fed. R. Evid. 201(a). The Court is permitted to take judicial notice "on its own," Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(1), however, the Court "must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information," Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(2).

Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of the travel distances to a specific address in Arlington, Virginia from various starting locations. Request for Judicial Notice 1-2,  [*9] ECF No. 154. Information on these distances, sourced from online resources,2 was supplied to the Court in an Appendix of Exhibits. App'x of Exs., Exs. K-N, ECF Nos. 155-7, 155-8, 155-9, & 155-10. Plaintiff takes no position with regard to this request.

2   The online resources include maps.google.com, www.distancefromto.net, and www.worldatlas.com.

Federal Rule of Evidence 201 permits district courts to "judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned." Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has ruled that "geographical information is especially appropriate for judicial notice." United States v. Johnson, 726 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1984); see also United States v. Lavender, 602 F.2d 639, 641 (4th Cir.  1979). Accordingly, district courts within the Fourth Circuit have on several occasions taken notice of travel distances, including in cases where the information was supplied from online sources. See, Elcomsoft, Ltd. v. Passcovery Co., Ltd., 958 F. Supp. 2d 616, 622 (E.D. Va. 2013),  [*10] reconsideration denied (Dec. 19, 2013) (taking "judicial notice that Russia is far from this District, and that any willing witnesses will face significant travel costs"); Rogers v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. CIV. JKB-12-1012, 2013 WL 2151675, at *8 n.5 (D. Md. May 15, 2013) (referring to driving distances obtained from Mapquest.com in taking "judicial notice that Odenton, Maryland ... is approximately eighteen miles from downtown Baltimore, twenty-seven miles from downtown Washington, and fifteen miles from Annapolis"); United States v. Franklin, No. CRIM. MJG-11-0095, 2012 WL 71018, at *1 n.3 (D. Md. Jan. 9, 2012) (taking "judicial notice of the Yahoo Internet directions to provide distance and driving time estimates").

As the Court has been "supplied with the necessary information," pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(2), the Court takes judicial notice of the following facts: 1) that [street number withheld] Maud Street NW, in Washington, DC is less than eight miles driving distance from [street number withheld] Joyce Street, in Arlington, Virginia; 2) that Beijing, China is over 6,900 miles flight distance from Arlington, Virginia; and 3) that La Jolla, California is over 2,600 miles  [*11] driving distance from Arlington, Virginia.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

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)

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Exclusion of Retained Expert for Failure to Provide 26(a)(2)(B) Report — Factors (Sixth Circuit) — The Importance of The Evidence Factor Cuts Both Ways: “The More Important The Proof, The Greater The Effect Of Preclusion, But Also The Greater The Harm In Tardy Disclosure”

(1) Bankruptcy Courts Have Only Civil Contempt Powers; (2) All Monetary Contempt Sanctions Must Be Civil — Designed Either to Coerce Compliance Or Compensate a Party for the Contemnor’s Violation, and Not Have As A Primary Purpose to Vindicate the Authority of the Bankruptcy Court Or Punish the Contemnor

Rule 11 and Inherent Power Sanctions: Vexatious Litigant Injunction (VLI) Broadened to Bar Any Further Filings in Issuing District Court Due to Violation of Narrower VLI And Failure to Pay Monetary Sanctions

(1) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38 Sanctions Should Not Issue Against Recidivist Filer of Frivolous Claims for Filing Brief Consisting Mostly of Unsubstantiated Accusations; (2) Vexatious Litigant Injunction to Issue If Any Monetary Penalty Not Paid Promptly

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