ARTICLE
29 January 2018

Strategic Implications Of Amendments To The Federal Rules Of Evidence

B
BakerHostetler

Contributor

BakerHostetler logo
Recognized as one of the top firms for client service, BakerHostetler is a leading national law firm that helps clients around the world address their most complex and critical business and regulatory issues. With five core national practice groups — Business, Labor and Employment, Intellectual Property, Litigation, and Tax — the firm has more than 970 lawyers located in 14 offices coast to coast. BakerHostetler is widely regarded as having one of the country’s top 10 tax practices, a nationally recognized litigation practice, an award-winning data privacy practice and an industry-leading business practice. The firm is also recognized internationally for its groundbreaking work recovering more than $13 billion in the Madoff Recovery Initiative, representing the SIPA Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. Visit bakerlaw.com
These new authentication rules have the potential to make the use of electronic evidence much smoother at trial.
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

On December 1, 2017, the Federal Rules of Evidence were amended to add new rules addressing the self-authentication of evidence generated by electronic processes or systems [Fed. R. Evid. 902(13)] and self-authentication of data copied from an electronic device, storage medium or file [Fed. R. Evid. 902(14)]. The intent of these amendments is to streamline authentication of electronic evidence through a written pretrial certification intended to eliminate the need for the proponent of the evidence to call a forensic technician (or other sponsoring witness) to testify about his or her background, qualifications and process of conducting a digital forensic examination. These amendments focus on authenticity only, and a proponent of the evidence must still be prepared to overcome other hurdles to admissibility, including hearsay and relevance.

These new authentication rules have the potential to make the use of electronic evidence much smoother at trial. Where a party will not stipulate to authenticity in advance, the time and resources saved could be exponential; no longer will you have to prepare a witness for trial, and there is a real possibility of fewer disputes between opposing parties. However, the new rules will require those involved in collecting and preserving evidence to have protocols that maintain the information the Rules require in the certification. Thus, it will be imperative that organizations, law firms, and vendors employ preservation and collection policies that capture and transfer the required data, including maintaining each piece of data's unique identifier (referred to as a "hash value"). These amendments do not prevent the parties from stipulating to authenticity, even without a certification. Nevertheless, they may incentivize parties to more aggressively challenge authenticity when it is apparent that an opponent is unable to make the pretrial certification envisioned by the amendments. Here are some sample certifications for both Rule 902(13) and Rule 902(14).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More