Du, Miranda M., United States District Judge
Defendants in a breach of contract case sought to
exclude metadata from Word documents as evidence on a motion in limine. They argued that use of the metadata was more
prejudicial than probative and that its use constituted inadmissible
hearsay. The court denied the motion on
both grounds.
On the issue of probative value, the court found that evidence should be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of undue prejudice. If the evidence is relevant, it is presumed to be admissible. Here, the evidence was relevant as it could be used to fortify claims of document ownership. Since defendants were not able to demonstrate undue prejudice, the evidence was admissible.
Defendants also argued that the metadata should be excluded as hearsay. The court definitively rejected this argument, citing the fact that the metadata was computer generated, and that hearsay is defined as a statement made by a declarant. A declarant is a person, not a computer. Absent proof of a document’s alteration, computer generated evidence is generally held to be admissible and is not hearsay. Because defendants were unable to show that the document was altered, the court denied their motion.
v.
Brad LEWIS, et al., Defendants
Counsel
Jonathan Hangartner, La Jolla, CA, Neil Ackerman, Neil Ackerman Esq., LLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff.Charlene Renwick, David S. Lee, John R. Hawley, Lee, Hernandez, Landrum, Garofalo & Blake, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant.