Fifth Circuit Rejects Judicial Notice of 'Wayback Machine' Archived Webpages
The court held that the Wayback Machine's archived webpages are not a proper subject of judicial notice "because a private internet archive falls short of being a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned as required by [Federal Rule of Evidence] Rule 201."
March 07, 2022 at 08:21 PM
6 minute read
Technology Media and TelecomTwo parties in a breach of contract action dispute the terms and conditions of an online auction. An archived webpage of the terms is available on the Wayback Machine, a publicly available online archive that preserves and stores copies of websites captured at specific dates and times—"a digital library of Internet sites"—run by the nonprofit Internet Archive (see https://archive.org/about/). In a bench trial, the defendant asks the court to take judicial notice of the archived webpage's contents on the premise that the Wayback Machine is a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. (Judicial notice is defined generally as a court's acceptance of the truth of a matter without formal evidentiary proof.) May the court take judicial notice of an archived webpage from the Wayback Machine, or must the defendant offer evidence authenticating the webpage before it may be admitted into evidence?
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEx-Philly Museum of Art GC Takes Legal Reins of Twilio-Backed Messaging Business
2 minute readAG in Texas Is Nation's First to Bring Gen AI Enforcement Action in Health Care
5 minute readGoogle Is Sued by Texas Credit Union Over Alleged Search Engine 'Monopoly'
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Tom Girardi's Lawyers Want Next Month's Sentencing Delayed
- 2About the Awards: Florida Legal Awards 2025 Q&A with Regional Managing Editor Katie Hall
- 3Trump Nominates Ex-SEC Chief Jay Clayton to Helm Southern District of New York US Attorney's Office
- 4Steward Health CEO Saga Signals Escalation of Coercive Congressional Oversight Against Private Parties
- 5'They Should Have Tried to Negotiate': Jury Finds Against Insurer
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250