In my November 2014 article titled, “Authenticating ESI—Yours, Theirs, and a Third Party’s,” I examined the many ways that a party can authenticate electronically stored information (ESI). One of the cases I discussed was United States v. Vayner, 769 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2014), which held that where the government offered evidence that a web page existed but not sufficient extrinsic evidence (e.g., who created it, who was accessing it as the owner of the website) to show who controlled it, a screenshot from the web page containing evidence making it appear that the defendant controlled the web page was improperly admitted.
Despite the fact that two years have elapsed since Vayner was issued, there is still much to learn regarding the authentication of ESI. Discussion of ESI has been so dominated by discovery issues—how to secure ESI, how to review it, when is the cost of a discovery request disproportionate to the value of the matter, and so on—that consideration of how and when ESI is admissible has taken a back seat.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
