Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33020, 241 F.R.D. 534, 73 Fed. R. Serv. 446 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, electronically stored information (ESI) submitted in support of a motion for summary judgment must be authenticated and otherwise admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence to be considered by the court.
Facts:
- Jack Lorraine and Beverly Mack owned a yacht named 'Chessie', which was insured by Markel American Insurance Company.
- On May 17, 2004, the yacht was struck by lightning while anchored in the Chesapeake Bay.
- Lorraine and Mack filed a claim with Markel, which issued a payment for some of the initial damage.
- Several months later, Lorraine and Mack discovered damage to the yacht's hull, which they claimed was also caused by the lightning strike.
- Markel denied that the hull damage, valued at $36,000, was caused by the lightning and denied coverage.
- The parties subsequently entered into a private arbitration agreement to determine whether the hull damage was caused by the lightning strike or by osmosis.
Procedural Posture:
- Markel initially filed a declaratory judgment action against Lorraine and Mack in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
- The parties voluntarily dismissed the Pennsylvania action and agreed to resolve their dispute through private arbitration.
- An arbitrator issued an award on June 12, 2006, finding some damage was caused by lightning but limiting the award amount.
- Lorraine and Mack (Plaintiffs) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland seeking to modify and enforce the arbitration award in their favor.
- Markel (Defendant) filed an answer and a counterclaim seeking to enforce the arbitrator's award as written.
- Following discovery, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment.
- Defendant filed a response and a cross-motion for summary judgment.
- The case is before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, may a court consider unauthenticated electronically stored information, such as emails, when ruling on a motion for summary judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Grimm, Chief United States Magistrate Judge.
No. A court may not consider unauthenticated electronically stored information on a motion for summary judgment because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 requires that such motions be supported by admissible evidence. The parties in this case failed to provide any authentication for the documentary evidence, including emails and the arbitration award, that they attached to their respective summary judgment motions. To be admissible, ESI must clear several evidentiary hurdles: it must be relevant (Rule 401), authentic (Rule 901), not be inadmissible hearsay (Rules 801-807), comply with the original writing rule (Rules 1001-1008), and its probative value must not be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice (Rule 403). Because the parties completely failed to authenticate their exhibits, the court cannot consider them and therefore cannot rule on the merits of the cross-motions for summary judgment. The motions were thus denied without prejudice, allowing the parties to resubmit them with proper evidentiary support.
Analysis:
This memorandum opinion is highly significant not for its resolution of the underlying arbitration dispute, but for its comprehensive and detailed analysis of the requirements for admitting electronically stored information (ESI) into evidence. It serves as an influential primer for legal practitioners on authenticating digital evidence, outlining a five-hurdle framework (relevance, authenticity, hearsay, original writing, and prejudice) that must be cleared. The decision underscored the necessity of applying traditional evidence rules rigorously to modern forms of communication like email, effectively warning the bar against treating digital evidence casually. This case is now a foundational text in e-discovery and evidence law, frequently cited for its clear roadmap on laying the proper foundation for ESI in federal court.
