Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co.

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search

Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.

Lorraine v. Markel

United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Decided May 4, 2007
Full case name Jack R. Lorraine and Beverly Mack v. Markel American Insurance Company
Citations 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007)
Holding Neither party provided admissible evidence to support the facts set forth in their respective motions for summary judgment
Judge Paul W. Grimm
Laws applied Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence

Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Company, 241 F.R.D. 534 (D.Md. May 4, 2007) is a case in which a landmark decision about the admissibility and authentication of digital evidence was set down in the form of a 100-page opinion [1] by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm.

Facts

Jack R. Lorraine and Beverly Mack had a yacht that was damaged by lightning. While Markel American Insurance Company already awarded costs for repair, more damage was found at a later stage when the yacht was removed from the water. In order to assess the additional damages, both parties entered into an arbitration agreement to assess if these damages were also due to the lightning strike. While both parties seek to confirm and enforce the arbitrator’s decision, this case comes forth from the ambiguous language used in the arbitration agreement regarding the authority of the arbitrator. Where Lorraine (plaintiff) argues that he is entitled to the sum of $36,000 as it was found that the damages came indeed from the lightning strike, Markel (defendant) argues that they acknowledge the damages to be reimbursed, but only to a limit of $14,000 as recommended by the arbitrator. Both parties moved for summary judgment, providing documentary evidence in the form of the arbitration agreement, award, and copies of e-mail correspondence between counsel.

Decision

Ruling

Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm stated that although the language of the arbitration agreement is indeed ambiguous enough to proceed with a trial, neither party provided admissible evidence to support the facts set forth in their respective motions for summary judgment under rule 56[2] of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the following reasons:

  • None of the exhibits were authenticated.[3]
  • No attempt was made to resolve hearsay issues.[4]
  • The original writing rule was not complied with.[5]
  • The absence of unfair prejudice was not demonstrated.[6]

Both motions were dismissed without prejudice.

Opinion

Because Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm found that guidance is needed for counsel to properly admit Electronically Stored Information (ESI) into evidence at trial or for use in summary judgment, he decided to provide broad analysis and guidance in his opinion. He summarized that whenever ESI is offered as evidence, either the judge or jury can make a preliminary determination regarding the admissibility of evidence under rule 104(a) or (b) respectively.[7] If the jury decides, the Federal Rules of Evidence still apply, however when the judge makes the decision, they do not apply anymore. When no preliminary determination is made, five more distinct yet interrelated evidence rules must be considered:

    1. Rules 401,[8] 402[9] and 105[10] - These rules are used to determine the relevance of the ESI, meaning that evidence is only admissible if it contains facts that are important to be included in a case, because if they were not included the ruling might be different. Furthermore, the fact that ESI is admissible for one purpose does not automatically mean that it is also admissible for another purpose.
      • In the case of Lorraine v. Markel, the evidence meets the requirements in these rules as it helps in determining the scope of the arbitration agreement.
      • See also United States v. Safavian on admissibility of e-mails
    2. Rule 901(a) [11] - This rule points out that one has to be able to prove that the ESI present is indeed what one claims it to be. The methods that can be used for authenticating evidence are described in the rule. Specifically for ESI, creating hash values or analyzing meta-data are both generally accepted methods.
      • In the case of Lorraine v. Markel, neither plaintiffs nor defendants authenticated the exhibits attached to their motions, rendering them useless as evidence. This was also the first reason for dismissing the motions.
      • See also United States v. Tank on admissibility of chat room logs
    3. Rule 801[12] - Evidence is hearsay if it constitutes a statement offered for its substantive truth and is not excluded from the definition of hearsay, unless it is an exception under rules 803,[13] 804[14] or 807.[15]
      • See also United States v. Rollins on the admissibility of computer generated records.
    4. Rules 1001 - 1008[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] - This set of rules defines that the evidence provided should either be original or an admissible duplicate, and if that is not possible which secondary evidence could be admissible instead in order to prove the contents of the evidence. Examples hereof often used for ESI are summaries or photographs of the original evidence.
      • In the case of Lorraine v. Markel, neither counsel addressed these rules appropriately, even though it is quite obvious that they apply to the e-mail exhibits provided.
      • See also People v. Huehn on the admissibility of computer generated bank records for which the original is unavailable
    5. Rule 403[25] - This rule is the final rule that can still result in dismissal of evidence. It stipulates that even though the presented evidence has probative value, it may still be deemed not admissible if its admission would create unfair prejudice, confuse or mislead the jury or delay the trial unnecessarily. With regards to ESI, examples of evidence that could be dismissed under this rule are when the evidence contains excessive offensive language, or when computer animations are used to make a point which can be incorrectly interpreted by the jury.
      • In the case of Lorraine v. Markel, the applicability of rule 403 was not addressed by either party.
      • See also Friend v. Time Manufacturing Co. on the admissibility of computer animations

Consequences / Aftermath

With this opinion, Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm has established a detailed baseline for the use of ESI before his court. Given the guidelines and references provided by the judge, it now becomes difficult for counsel to argue admissibility of electronic evidence. With this guide at hand, one can easily determine beforehand which evidence will and will not be allowed in trial, and provide a thorough framework of protection for both the plaintiff and the defendant.

References

  1. ↑ Full opinion on the court’s website
  2. ↑ Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
  3. ↑ Under rule 901(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence
  4. ↑ Under rule 801 of the Federal Rules of Evidence
  5. ↑ Under rule 1001 of the Federal Rules of Evidence
  6. ↑ Under rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence
  7. ↑ Under 104(a) the judge makes the decision, while under 104(b) the jury decides.
  8. ↑ Rule 401 - Definition of Relevant Evidence
  9. ↑ Rule 402 - Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible
  10. ↑ Rule 105 - Limited Admissibility
  11. ↑ Rule 901 - Requirement of Authentication or Identification
  12. ↑ Rule 801 - Definitions of Hearsay
  13. ↑ Rule 803 - Hearsay Exceptions - Availability of Declarant Immaterial
  14. ↑ Rule 804 - Hearsay Exceptions - Declarant Unavailable
  15. ↑ Rule 807 - Residual Exception
  16. ↑ Rule 1001 - Definitions of Writings
  17. ↑ Rule 1002 - Requirement of Original
  18. ↑ Rule 1002 is traditionally known as the best evidence rule.
  19. ↑ Rule 1003 - Admissibility of Duplicates
  20. ↑ Rule 1004 - Admissibility of Other Evidence of Contents
  21. ↑ Rule 1005 - Public Records
  22. ↑ Rule 1006 - Summaries
  23. ↑ Rule 1007 - Testimony or Written Admission of Party
  24. ↑ Rule 1008 - Functions of Court and Jury
  25. ↑ Rule 403 - Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time

External links

Retrieved from "https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Lorraine_v._Markel_American_Insurance_Co.&oldid=4360475"