Legal Question in Civil Litigation in Nevada

Someone has to give evidence using - either an in court electronic - like real time on-line version - or an electronic copy - by thumb drive or the like - that - what the Court is seeing - even a paper copy - is a fair and accurate representation of what the witness saw on the date and time and place relevant to the purpose for which it's being offered.

It goes like this - W = Witness, P = Picture of website, magnetic, print or otherwise, it might even include a description of the website or what was seen if you're doing it by affidavit or something. Q = Questioner

Q - I show you exhibit A - (which is P) Do you recognize it?

W - Yes

Q - What is it?

W - It's P.

Q.- Is P a fair and accurate representation of what you saw..... when you saw it as relevant etc.

W - Yes.

Then when did you see it. why is it relevant important proof of what you say is a Jurisdictional Question. You might also need to subpoena an ISP who published it to say - yes it was published in Nevada... along those lines.

Obviously I don't have the facts but that's the minimum kind of thing.

Google me.

The answer to this question is not so easy. The law is rapidly evolving in this area, and until fully developed, the answer to this question will have to come from the so-called "Grey Area."

Generally, authenticating a printout of a web page, in its simplest form, requires that the proponent offer evidence that:

(1) the printout accurately reflects the computer image of the web page as of a specified date;

(2) the website where the posting appears is owned or controlled by a particular person or entity; and

(3) the authorship of the web posting is reasonably attributable to that person or entity.

See Christopher B. Mueller and Laird Kirkpatrick, 5 Federal Evidence � 9:9 (3d. ed. 2007).

Another potential approach to authenticating a web page is through judicial notice pursuant to NRS 47.130, which states that a court may take notice of �adjudicative facts.� Adjudicative facts are not subject to reasonable dispute because they are either:

(1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or

(2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. NRS 47.130.

Because an official municipal website offers content which must be presumed to be authentic and accurate, a court can take judicial notice of a website, subject only to challenges on the grounds of relevancy. Documents stored on official government websites can often be admitted into evidence without authentication if they are deemed self-authenticated pursuant to NRS 52.135, which states that �[b]ooks pamphlets or other publications purporting to be issued by public authority are presumed to be authentic.� Courts have generally held that records from an official government website are self-authenticating pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 902(5), the Federal counterpart to NRS 52.135. See, e.g., Estate of Gonzales v. Hickman, No. ED CV 05-660 MMM (Rcx), 2007 WL 3237727, *2, fn. 3 (C.D. Cal. May 30, 2007) (unreported) (finding report issued by the Inspector General of California on Office of Inspector General�s website to be self-authentic).

Lastly, there are businesses that take daily snapshots of the Internet. Again, this is a rapidly evolving area, but it appears that the trend may be to allow these businesses to authenticate and certify documents that have been uploaded onto the Internet.