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

Text Messages Insufficiently Authenticated by Testimony That Proponent Identified Owner of Phone from Which Texts Were Sent at an Uncertain Later Time and That He Couldn’t Recall How He Accessed or Copied the Messages

Download PDF

Barker v. Computer Sci. Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39994 (E.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2015):

Plaintiff Damien Barker ("Plaintiff" or "Barker") began his employment with Computer Science Corporation ("CSC") in February 2011 as a systems analyst. (Dkt. No. 77-6 at 2-3). In this position, he provided technical support to the United States Marine Corps ("Marine Corps"), a CSC client. Plaintiff's immediate supervisor was Nick Avenetti ("Avenetti"), and his secondary supervisor was Program Manager Judith Shaw ("Shaw"). Id. Captain Howard Smith ("Capt. Smith") served as the Marine Corps Operations Officer at Camp Pendleton. [*2]  Id. Richard Pennington ("Pennington") was CSC's Operations Director. (Dkt. No. 77-3 at 2).

Plaintiff alleges that beginning in March 2011, his coworkers made inappropriate racial comments and jokes toward him.1 (Dkt. No. 81 at 2). Plaintiff testified in his deposition that early in his employment, Sergeant Dieter Schirrmacher ("Sgt. Schirrmacher")2 and Jeremiah Mooney ("Mooney") made jokes at a barbeque about Barker making pan-fried chicken. (Dkt. No. 81-25 at 21). Plaintiff also alleged that Mooney and Sgt. Schirrmacher made jokes about racial stereotypes involving watermelons. (Dkt. No. 90-1 at 2, 7).

1   The coworkers alleged to have made these comments were not African American.

2   Sgt. Schirrmacher was employed by the Marine Corps, not CSC.

***

3. Exhibit V

Exhibit V is a printout of a purported text message exchange between Capt. Smith and Sgt. Schirrmacher. (Dkt. No. 81-21), CSC argues that Exhibit V should be stricken because the text messages are unauthenticated. (Dkt. No. 87 at 5). Plaintiff argues that he authenticated the text messages at his deposition and in the declaration submitted as Exhibit 1 to his opposition to the motion to strike. (Dkt. No. 92 at 3-6).

The Court finds that Plaintiff did not adequately authenticate the text messages at his deposition. Barker testified that he determined the phone belonged to Capt. Smith. (Dkt. No. 78-1 at 68), But he could not recall at the time of his deposition when he found the phone, other than that it occurred sometime after he made complaints about discrimination in October. Id. at 69. Nor did he remember how he copied the messages, although he guessed that he "might have" taken a picture of the messages. Id. at 68-69. He could not recall how he accessed the messages, or what he did with the phone after he copied the [*28]  messages. Id. at 69-70. The Court also declines to accept as authentication of the text messages the declaration signed on November 18, 2014 and filed as Exhibit 1 to the plaintiffs opposition to the motion to strike, Accordingly, Exhibit V and Exhibit 1 (the declaration) are stricken.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) Spoliation: Sanctions Are Warranted Only If the Movant Establishes That A Reasonable Trier of Fact Could Find That The Destroyed Evidence Would Support A Claim Or Defense — § 1927 Sanctions: “Courts Often Refuse to Award Sanctions When Both Parties Contributed to the Waste of Judicial Resources” (Good Quote)

No Sanctions Imposed on Counsel Who Submitted A.I.-Generated Phony Cases Without Checking Them in Good Faith on The Mistaken Assumption They Had Been Provided by Highly Respected Co-Counsel Rather Than His Criminally-Convicted, Disbarred Client — No Sanctions on Client Who Had No Access to LEXIS or Westlaw to Check the Phony Cases and Submitted Them in Good Faith: “It Would Have Been Downright Irrational For Him To Provide Fake Cases For [His Lawyer] To Include In The Motion Knowing They Were Fake —

(1) Electronic Spoliation — Rule 37(e)(2) Dismissal Sanction — Temporal Proximity of Spoliation to Production Due Date = Circumstantial Evidence of Intent; (2) While Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Abuse Of Discretion, Findings Of Fact Related To Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Clear Error; (3) Dismissal under Rule 37(e)(2) Plus Attorney’s Fees under Inherent Power Appropriately Combined [But see 2015 Advisory Committee Note: “New Rule 37(e) … authorizes and specifies measures a court may employ if information that should have been preserved is lost, and specifies the findings necessary to justify these measures. forecloses reliance on inherent authority or state law to determine when certain measures should be used.”]; (4) Compensatory Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger Appropriately Include Fees and Costs Resulting from Attempts to Settle Spoliation Motion

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

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

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