Authentication of Evidence

Authentication of Evidence in Cases is Happening More Often: eDiscovery Trends

My latest blog post for IPRO’s blog discusses how cases involving authentication of evidence are happening more often and why.

When you cover 65-70 case law rulings a year like I do on eDiscovery Today and review three to four times that many to select rulings to cover, you notice which types of disputes are happening more often. One type of dispute happening more frequently relates to the authentication of evidence. The variety of data sources in discovery today has led to an increase in authentication disputes which makes it more important than ever to automate the chain of custody of these various data sources to effectively defend challenges to the authenticity of the evidence produced and presented.

Recent cases demonstrate the challenges faced during authentication of evidence as different courts have different expectations as to standards for authentication, making it more important than ever to be able to demonstrate a defensible process for handling evidence in your cases.


So, what are four cases that demonstrate the complexity of authentication disputes today? Why are we seeing more authentication disputes? And what can you do to best protect your organization? You can find out on IPRO’s blog here. It’s just one extra click! 😉

So, what do you think? Do you agree that authentication of evidence in cases is happening more often? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclosure: IPRO is an Educational Partner and sponsor of eDiscovery Today

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.


Leave a Reply