FEDERAL DISTRICT · 200704 / 55

Lorraine v. Markel American Ins. Co.

Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (2007). Decided in D. Md..

COURT: D. Md.
DECIDED: 2007
CITATION: 241 F.R.D. 534
OUTCOME: Excluded
STANDARD: Other (Rule 901, 403, or state rule)
CITED BY: 113 later opinions (CourtListener)

THE HOLDING

Cross-motions for summary judgment were denied without prejudice because every exhibit — e-mail and other electronically stored information — was submitted without any showing of authenticity. The opinion then sets out at length the evidence rules a proponent of ESI must satisfy.

EXCLUDED

AUTHENTICATION

CHECK THIS ENTRY AGAINST THE SOURCE

Every entry in this docket was written from the opinion itself, and this is the copy that was read. If the opinion does not support what is written here, the entry is wrong — tell us and it will be corrected or removed rather than softened.

READ THE OPINIONLorraine v. Markel American Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534↗

COURTLISTENER · FREE LAW PROJECT · OPENS IN THE SAME TAB

On this page

The court's reasoning
From the opinion
Grounds argued
Practice note
Terms used on this page
Rulings on the same grounds

The court’s reasoning

Evidence offered at summary judgment must be such as would be admissible at trial. The court described the admissibility of ESI as a series of hurdles — relevance under Rule 401, authenticity under Rule 901(a), hearsay under Rules 801 and 803/804/807, the original-writing rules, and Rule 403 — and held that the parties had cleared the first and omitted the second entirely. Rule 901(b)(9), authentication by describing a process or system and showing that it produces an accurate result, is identified as the provision that draws in expert testimony under Rule 702.

From the opinion

“Whether ESI is admissible into evidence is determined by a collection of evidence rules that present themselves like a series of hurdles to be cleared by the proponent of the evidence.”
Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (2007)

Grounds argued

This ruling turned on one of the eight arguments that recur across the docket. Each is defined the same way on every entry, so the same ground can be followed across rulings that reached opposite results.

Authentication: Whether the proponent can show the electronic record is what it is claimed to be, under Rule 901 or a state analogue. Rule 901(b)(9) — describing a process or system and showing it produces an accurate result — is where a forensic examiner's foundation testimony usually lands.

Practice note

Practice note — our reading, not the court’s

EDITORIAL. THIS PARAGRAPH IS NOT PART OF THE HOLDING AND WAS NOT SAID BY THE COURT.

Lorraine is the map of where a forensic examiner is actually needed, and it is narrower than examiners often assume: Rule 901(b)(9) is the door, and it asks for a description of the process and a showing that it produces an accurate result. Write the acquisition and extraction sequence as a described system with a verification step, rather than as a narrative of what was done, and the 901(b)(9) foundation is already on the page.

Everything above this panel — the holding, the reasoning, the quoted line — is a report of what the court decided and can be checked against the linked opinion. This paragraph is our own judgement about what a testifying examiner should do differently, and it should be cited as that or not at all.

Terms used on this page

Every term below is defined in the forensic glossary — what it is, why a case turns on it, and what happens in the matter when it is mishandled.

One ruling is not a rule. These are the other entries in the docket argued on the same grounds, most-cited first — including the ones that came out the other way, which are the ones worth reading before relying on this entry for anything.

ON AUTHENTICATION

United States v. Browne 834 F.3d 403 (2016) ADMITTED
Commonwealth v. Caruso 476 Mass. 275, 67 N.E.3d 1203 (2017) ADMITTED IN PART

THIS ARGUMENT IN YOUR MATTER

If an opinion in your case has to survive the argument this ruling turned on — or you need one tested before it is served — Law & Forensics retains court-tested digital forensic expert witnesses and forensic neutrals.

START A CONFLICTS CHECK→

DIRECT → info@lawandforensics.com·855-529-2466

A conflicts check and scoping call follow, normally within one business day. Please do not send privileged or case-sensitive material until conflicts have cleared.

The Daubert Docket
All 55 rulings, filterable by ground, outcome and court, with the distribution across the three outcomes reported up front.
Daubert and digital evidence
The argument this docket is the evidence for: why an opinion stated one level too strongly is an admissibility problem under Rule 702(d).
Daubert Exposure Check
Twelve questions about an expert's methodology, mapped to the failure modes these rulings keep finding, with the remediation for each gap.
Daubert or Frye?
Which reliability test your forum applies — settle that before relying on a ruling from another jurisdiction.

← BACK TO THE DAUBERT DOCKET

Attorney advertising / expert services. Each entry summarises a decision as it appeared in the opinion linked from that entry, on the day the entry was written. Decisions are reversed, vacated, superseded, and distinguished, and the text of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was itself amended effective 1 December 2023 — check the current status and subsequent history of any ruling before relying on it. Nothing here is legal advice, none of it is a prediction about how any court will rule, and it is not a substitute for the rules, standing orders and case law of your own forum.