I'm not an attorney and I don't even play one on television but....I believe there is the "Original Document Rule" that would have it that the best primary evidence of the contents of a document is the "original" of that document.  If the "original" is no longer available and the court excuses its production then secondary evidence (e.g., a copy) is admissible.  However, in the digital world if I digitally sign a document, save it in my computer, and send it on to you, which is the original document?  Or if I wet sign two copies and send one to you, are there two originals?  Perhaps, now, it's a distinction without a difference.  Both copies would probably be primary evidence or "best evidence".  Maybe too arcane for my shrinking cortex.  Dick King, University Records Officer, University of Arizona.


Aloha All,

Back from a well-needed vacation and decided to chime on this issue...

I agree with Glen that the "record" versus "official record" is a needed distinction and extremely relevant...I agree that everything in a "legal sense" despite what format or media it is created or transmitted.  However, the issue is whether the "record" is an "official" representation of the "intent" of the company or originator of the message and whether it correctly represents what was created in the "normal course" of business.  It is extremely relevant to make the distinction between an "official" representation of fact or one's views versus something that may have been altered or created informally.

Yes, I believe that Glen is correct that this issue needs to be discussed at length...

Mahalo,

Brian

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]