array(7) {
  ["_edit_lock"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(12) "1394406678:3"
  }
  ["_edit_last"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(1) "3"
  }
  ["_custom_post_type_onomies_relationship"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(3) "926"
  }
  ["_itn_source"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(45) "E—Discovery Connection (The DRI Newsletter)"
  }
  ["_itn_author"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(13) "Chris Hanslik"
  }
  ["_itn_file"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(0) ""
  }
  ["_searchwp_last_index"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(10) "1535472460"
  }
}

Admissibility of ESI: The Lorraine Five-Step

By: Chris Hanslik, E—Discovery Connection (The DRI Newsletter)

April 15, 2010

The subject of admissibility of electronically stored information (“ESI”) has not been explored in detail by the courts. Discovery of ESI can be very expensive; yet, practitioners have no clear guidelines as to how to ensure their ESI is admissible at trial or for summary judgment purposes-enter Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Company. The court in Lorraine wrote a decision that could qualify as the most concise and complete exposition of admissibility analysis related to electronic evidence. The court felt it was necessary for someone to lay out the rules of admissibility of electronic evidence, because of the unique nature of ESI.

For a link to the complete story, click here.