When will a court find that an electronic communication has been properly authenticated?

Who’s Using Your E-mail Address?

What are the requirements for authentication of electronic communications?  Is past-use of an email address enough to authenticate an electronic communication? Or will a court require more? These are a few of the questions answered by the Eastern District of North Carolina in U.S. v. Shah.

U.S. v. Shah is a federal criminal prosecution of a former Information Technology Manager at Smart Online, Inc.  The government alleges that, after the defendant stopped working for Smart Online, Inc., he intentionally accessed his former company’s computer network and caused significant damage. During the pretrial proceedings, a dispute arose as to the admissibility of certain evidence.

The government had obtained information from Google, Inc. via a third-party subpoena.  Specifically, the government obtained more than one gigabyte of data associated with the e-mail address SHAHNN28@gmail.com.  The government sought to admit certain e-mails and chat conversations, which were sent and received from this e-mail address, as evidence in the criminal prosecution against the defendant.  The government then filed a motion in limine for pretrial determination of the admissibility of this evidence.

The relevant e-discovery issue here relates to the authentication of these electronic communications.  In analyzing the government’s motion in limine, the Court found that the government may not rely exclusively on defendant’s prior use of the email address to authenticate the documents.  The Court went on to state that “Both email and electronic chats are faceless means of communication, with users identified by an email address or username.  The recipient cannot, simply by looking at the email address or username provided in the document, readily identify the true identity of a message’s sender.”

The Court ultimately found that authentication of these electronic communications requires more than simply past-use of the email address at issue.  Rather, the Court held that the government must “make sufficient showing that the context surrounding or content of these emails and chats connects defendant to them.”  In sum, the Court employed a more stringent standard for authentication of electronic communications than it would for “ordinary” evidence.

Kevin DeMaio received a B.A. in History from Princeton University in 2012.  He will receive his J.D. from Seton Hall University School of Law in 2016.

Comments are closed.

  • Find an eLesson

  • Register for Post Notifications

    Subscribe to receive updates whenever a new eLesson is published.

    Manage Subscriptions
  • Let Us Blog Your Event!

    eLessons Learned is fast becoming the site of choice for employers, employees, judges, lawyers, and journalists who are interested in learning more about these areas without being intimidated by the complexity of the topic. In fact, organizations and event coordinators often feature eLessons Learned as their official eDiscovery blog. Fill out our simple registration form to have eLessons Learned be the official blog of your organization or event.

    Register Now
  • Recent Praise

    The blog takes a clever approach to [e-discovery]. Each post discusses an e-discovery case that involves an e-discovery mishap, generally by a company employee. It discusses the conduct that constituted the mishap and then offers its ‘e-lesson’ — a suggestion on how to learn from the mistake and avoid it happening to you.

    Robert Ambrogi

    Legal Tech Blogger and creator of LawSites

    Although I may have missed some, yours is the first article that I have seen addressing Zubulake II. It is often the lost opinion amongst the others.

    Laura A. Zubulake

    Plaintiff, Zubulake v. UBS Warburg

    Click here to see more.