Alerts

Strategic Implications of Amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence

Alerts / January 26, 2018

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).

Authorship credit: Carey S. Busen and Gilbert S. Ketelas.

Baker & Hostetler LLP publications are intended to inform our clients and other friends of the firm about current legal developments of general interest. They should not be construed as legal advice, and readers should not act upon the information contained in these publications without professional counsel. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you written information about our qualifications and experience.

Blog

In The Blogs

Previous Next
Discovery Advocate
The CLOUD Act and the Warrant Canaries That (Sometimes) Live There
By Nichole L. Sterling
November 26, 2018
The Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (Pub. L. No. 115-141 (2018), or the CLOUD Act, was enacted in the U.S. on March 23, 2018, in response to difficulties U.S. law enforcement agencies (LEAs) had when attempting to gain access to...
Read More ->
Discovery Advocate
E-discovery, the Cloud and Blockchain – How New Practices May Require a ‘Back to School' Approach
By James A. Sherer, Nichole L. Sterling
September 14, 2018
The practice of e-discovery has always incorporated considerations of new and emerging technologies as well as related attorney competence. With the advent of cloud services and significant use by clients, e-discovery practitioners...
Read More ->
Discovery Advocate
eDiscovery and Technology
By Karen DeSouza, Nkosi D. Shields
May 3, 2018
Should All States Require Continuing Technology Education (CTE)? For more than five years we have discussed the need for attorney competence in technology, especially as related to discovery in posts like this one and this one. As...
Read More ->
Discovery Advocate
What the Working Party might be Thinking about Discovery – WP 261 Derogations to the GDPR
By James A. Sherer, Nichole L. Sterling
April 23, 2018
On Feb. 6, 2018, the Article 29 Working Party (Working Party 29) published Working Paper 261 (WP 261), which provided guidance on the provisions of Article 49 of the European Union’s (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This...
Read More ->
Discovery Advocate
What Judges are really saying about Technology Assisted Review
By Csilla Boga-Lofaro, David Choi, James A. Sherer
April 6, 2018
Since the first judicial opinion endorsing the use of Technology Assisted Review (or TAR) was written by Judge Andrew J. Peck in 2012, an entire legal industry has grown up on the premise of streamlining the document review process in...
Read More ->