
Electronic discovery-including the contents of e-mail messages and/or the deletion of e-mails-has driven the outcome of many high-profile cases. We live in a progressively more digital world. Thus, when disputes ripen into litigation, clients, attorneys, and judges have had to focus increasingly on preserving, gathering, culling, reviewing, and producing electronic information. The complexity of information technology (IT) and the costs of mastering IT have burgeoned. Only some eDiscovery issues are resolvable by resort to traditional discovery principles.
In June of 2004, the North Carolina Supreme Court decided Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., which interpreted the standard for admitting expert testimony under Rule 702 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence. The issue before the court was whether a North Carolina trial court's gatekeeping responsibility under Rule 702 is the same as that imposed on the federal courts by the Supreme Court's 1993 decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which requires an independent preliminary assessment of whether the proffered expert testimony is both reliable and relevant.
Lorraine v. Markel may have a profound impact on the world of electronic evidence admissibility for its guidance to lawyers, but in the area of computer animations and simulations, it carries a mixed message. The opinion takes a progressive approach to the unfair prejudice standard, granting broad discretion to courts to admit computer animation and simulation into evidence. However, the opinion takes a conservative approach to the treatment of computer simulations as scientific evidence.