Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co.

Last updated
Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co.
DistrictCourtMarylandSeal.png
Court United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Full case nameJack R. Lorraine and Beverly Mack v. Markel American Insurance Company
DecidedMay 4, 2007
Docket nos. 1:06-cv-01893
Citation(s)241 F.R.D. 534
Holding
Neither party provided admissible evidence to support the facts set forth in their respective motions for summary judgment.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Paul W. Grimm
Keywords
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence

Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Company, 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 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.

Contents

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:

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:

Consequences

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.[ citation needed ]

Related Research Articles

Affidavit Written legal statement, made under oath

An affidavit is a written statement voluntarily made by an affiant or deponent under an oath or affirmation which is administered by a person who is authorized to do so by law. Such a statement is witnessed as to the authenticity of the affiant's signature by a taker of oaths, such as a notary public or commissioner of oaths. An affidavit is a type of verified statement or showing, or in other words, it contains a verification, which means that it is made under oath on penalty of perjury, and this serves as evidence for its veracity and is required in court proceedings.

An expert witness, particularly in common law countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States, is a person whose opinion by virtue of education, training, certification, skills or experience, is accepted by the judge as an expert. The judge may consider the witness's specialized opinion about evidence or about facts before the court within the expert's area of expertise, to be referred to as an "expert opinion". Expert witnesses may also deliver "expert evidence" within the area of their expertise. Their testimony may be rebutted by testimony from other experts or by other evidence or facts.

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution 1791 amendment enumerating rights related to criminal prosecutions

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Hearsay is testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting an out-of-court statement that is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

In law, a summary judgment is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial. Summary judgments may be issued on the merits of an entire case, or on discrete issues in that case. The formulation of the summary judgment standard is stated in somewhat different ways by courts in different jurisdictions. In the United States, the presiding judge generally must find there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." In England and Wales, the court rules for a party without a full trial when "the claim, defence or issue has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial."

First adopted in 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence codify the evidence law that applies in United States federal courts. In addition, many states in the United States have either adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, with or without local variations, or have revised their own evidence rules or codes to at least partially follow the federal rules.

The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction.

A learned treatise, in the law of evidence, is a text that is sufficiently authoritative in its field to be admissible as evidence in a court in support of the contentions made therein.

The party admission, in the law of evidence, is a type of statement that appears to be hearsay but is generally exempted (excluded) from the definition of hearsay because it was made by a party to the litigation adverse to the party introducing it into evidence.

Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is any testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a factfinder—usually a judge or jury—to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant and "not excluded by the rules of evidence", which generally means that it must not be unfairly prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability. The general rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible and all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible, though some countries proscribe the prosecution from exploiting evidence obtained in violation of constitutional law, thereby rendering relevant evidence inadmissible. This rule of evidence is called the exclusionary rule. In the United States this was effectuated federally in 1914 under the Supreme Court case Weeks v. United States and incorporated against the states in 1961 in the case Mapp v. Ohio, both of which involving law enforcement conducting warrantless searches of the petitioners' homes, with incriminating evidence being described inside them.

Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence of the United States, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial. The Federal Rules of Evidence contain the rules governing impeachment in US federal courts.

In evidence law, digital evidence or electronic evidence is any probative information stored or transmitted in digital form that a party to a court case may use at trial. Before accepting digital evidence a court will determine if the evidence is relevant, whether it is authentic, if it is hearsay and whether a copy is acceptable or the original is required.

<i>R v Starr</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Starr [2000] 2 SCR 144 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision that re-evaluated several principles of evidence. In particular, they held the "principled approach" hearsay evidence under R v Khan and R v Smith (1992) can be equally used to exclude otherwise admissible hearsay evidence. In addition, the Court examined the judge's charge to the jury on the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hearsay evidence, in a legal forum, is testimony from an under-oath witness who is reciting an out-of-court statement, the content of which is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In most courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies.

The hearsay provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 reformed the common law relating to the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings begun on or after 4 April 2005.

In United States law, a declaration against interest is an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used, where generally the content of the statement is so prejudicial to the person making it that they would not have made the statement unless they believed the statement was true. The Federal Rules of evidence limit the bases of prejudices to the declarant to tort and criminal liability. Some states, such as California, extend the prejudice to "hatred, ridicule, or social disgrace in the community."

In the law of the United States of America, an objection is a formal protest raised in court during a trial to disallow a witness's testimony or other evidence in violation of the rules of evidence or other procedural law. An objection is typically raised after the opposing party asks a question of the witness, but before the witness can answer, or when the opposing party is about to enter something into evidence. The judge then makes a ruling on whether the objection is "sustained" or "overruled". An attorney may choose to "rephrase" a question that has been objected to, so long as the judge permits it. Lawyers should make an objection before there is an answer to the question.

Relevance, in the common law of evidence, is the tendency of a given item of evidence to prove or disprove one of the legal elements of the case, or to have probative value to make one of the elements of the case likelier or not. Probative is a term used in law to signify "tending to prove". Probative evidence "seeks the truth". Generally in law, evidence that is not probative is inadmissible and the rules of evidence permit it to be excluded from a proceeding or stricken from the record "if objected to by opposing counsel". A balancing test may come into the picture if the value of the evidence needs to be weighed versus its prejudicial nature.

The business records exception to the U.S. hearsay rule is based on Rule 803(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE). It is sometimes referred to as the business entry rule.

Paul William Grimm is a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

References

  1. ↑ Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co., 241F.R.D.534 (D. Md.2007).
  2. ↑ Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
  3. ↑ Under rule 901(a) Archived 2010-08-19 at the Wayback Machine of the Federal Rules of Evidence
  4. ↑ Under rule 801 Archived 2010-08-19 at the Wayback Machine of the Federal Rules of Evidence
  5. ↑ Under rule 1001 Archived 2010-08-19 at the Wayback Machine of the Federal Rules of Evidence
  6. ↑ Under rule 403 Archived 2010-08-19 at the Wayback Machine 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". Archived from the original on 2010-08-19. Retrieved 2010-02-18.
  9. ↑ "Rule 402 - Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible". Archived from the original on 2010-08-19. Retrieved 2010-02-18.
  10. ↑ "Rule 105 - Limited Admissibility". Archived from the original on 2010-08-19. Retrieved 2010-02-18.
  11. ↑ "Rule 901 - Requirement of Authentication or Identification". Archived from the original on 2010-08-19. Retrieved 2010-02-18.
  12. ↑ "Rule 801 - Definitions of Hearsay". Archived from the original on 2010-08-19. Retrieved 2010-02-18.
  13. ↑ "Rule 803 - Hearsay Exceptions - Availability of Declarant Immaterial". Archived from the original on 2010-08-19. Retrieved 2010-02-18.
  14. ↑ "Rule 804 - Hearsay Exceptions - Declarant Unavailable". Archived from the original on 2010-08-19. Retrieved 2010-02-18.
  15. ↑ "Rule 807 - Residual Exception". Archived from the original on 2010-08-19. Retrieved 2010-02-18.
  16. ↑ "Rule 1001 - Definitions of Writings". Archived from the original on 2010-08-19. Retrieved 2010-02-18.
  17. ↑ "Rule 1002 - Requirement of Original". Archived from the original on 2010-08-19. Retrieved 2010-02-18.
  18. ↑ Rule 1002 is traditionally known as the best evidence rule.
  19. ↑ "Rule 1003 - Admissibility of Duplicates". Archived from the original on 2010-08-19. Retrieved 2010-02-18.
  20. ↑ "Rule 1004 - Admissibility of Other Evidence of Contents". Archived from the original on 2010-08-19. Retrieved 2010-02-18.
  21. ↑ "Rule 1005 - Public Records". Archived from the original on 2010-08-19. Retrieved 2010-02-18.
  22. ↑ "Rule 1006 - Summaries". Archived from the original on 2010-08-19. Retrieved 2010-02-18.
  23. ↑ "Rule 1007 - Testimony or Written Admission of Party". Archived from the original on 2010-08-19. Retrieved 2010-02-18.
  24. ↑ "Rule 1008 - Functions of Court and Jury". Archived from the original on 2010-08-19. Retrieved 2010-02-18.
  25. ↑ "Rule 403 - Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time". Archived from the original on 2010-08-19. Retrieved 2010-02-18.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.