词条 | Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co. |
释义 |
| name = Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co. | court = United States District Court for the District of Maryland | image = | imagesize = | caption = | full name = Jack R. Lorraine and Beverly Mack v. Markel American Insurance Company | date decided = May 4, 2007 | docket = [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4512526/lorraine-v-markel-american-insurance-company/ 1:06-cv-01893] | citations = 241 F.R.D. [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4512526/27/lorraine-v-markel-american-insurance-company/ 534] | transcripts = | judge = Paul W. Grimm | prosecutor = | counsel for plaintiff= | plaintiff = | defendant = | prior actions = | subsequent actions = | holding = Neither party provided admissible evidence to support the facts set forth in their respective motions for summary judgment. | 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. FactsJack 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. DecisionRulingMagistrate 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. OpinionBecause 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 / AftermathWith 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. References1. ^{{cite court |litigants=Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co. |vol=241 |reporter=F.R.D. |opinion=534 |pinpoint= |court=D. Md. |date=2007 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4512526/27/lorraine-v-markel-american-insurance-company/ |accessdate=2019-03-14 |quote=}} 2. ^Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 3. ^Under rule 901(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence 4. ^Under rule 801 of the Federal Rules of Evidence 5. ^Under rule 1001 of the Federal Rules of Evidence 6. ^Under rule 403 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 9. ^Rule 402 - Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible 10. ^Rule 105 - Limited Admissibility 11. ^Rule 901 - Requirement of Authentication or Identification 12. ^Rule 801 - Definitions of Hearsay 13. ^Rule 803 - Hearsay Exceptions - Availability of Declarant Immaterial 14. ^Rule 804 - Hearsay Exceptions - Declarant Unavailable 15. ^Rule 807 - Residual Exception 16. ^Rule 1001 - Definitions of Writings 17. ^Rule 1002 - Requirement of Original 18. ^Rule 1002 is traditionally known as the best evidence rule. 19. ^Rule 1003 - Admissibility of Duplicates 20. ^Rule 1004 - Admissibility of Other Evidence of Contents 21. ^Rule 1005 - Public Records 22. ^Rule 1006 - Summaries 23. ^Rule 1007 - Testimony or Written Admission of Party 24. ^Rule 1008 - Functions of Court and Jury 25. ^Rule 403 - Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time External links
| case = Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Company, 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007) | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4512526/27/lorraine-v-markel-american-insurance-company/
3 : United States district court cases|United States evidence case law|2007 in United States case law |
随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识,基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识,是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。