Technology’s Effect on Advocacy
Abu-Lughod v. Calis, No. CV 13-2792 DMG (RZx), 2015 LX 81686, at *7 (C.D. Cal. May 20, 2015); McGucken v. Triton Elec. Vehicle Ltd. Liab. Co. , No. CV 21-3624-DMG (GJSx), 2022 LX 112951, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2022); Hansen Cold Storage Constr. v. Cold Sys., No. 2:19-cv-07617-SB-MAA, 2021 LX 62685, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2021) (rejecting hearsay argument, but reserving ruling on motion in limine until the plaintiff could show how the archived webpage evidence could be properly authenticated).
However, a court may still find the archival evidence remains subject to a hearsay objection, as in Talent Mobile Dev., Inc. v. Headios Grp., No. ED CV 18-0156-DOC (DFMx), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217114, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 4, 2018). Archived versions of information or documents on the web may prove to be invaluable in litigation, but do not assume they will be available forever. Take the time now to take the screenshot. And remember to give due consideration to authentication requirements.
36
Consumer Attorneys of California
FORUM September/October 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs