The day has come where a citizen can testify, “I wasn’t speeding and I have the global positioning system to prove it.” That was the defense for the teenage son of a retired sheriff deputy in California not too long ago.  Rather than the driver’s word against the police officer’s word, it’s GPS v. Radar, almost as exciting as Optimus Prime versus Megatron in the movie Transformers.

Even the simple traffic case now has the potential to turn into an expert case with Daubert challenges and motions to exclude the electronic evidence based upon Lorraine v. Markle Am. Ins. Co., 2007 WL 1300739 (D. Md.). But just because you can, doesn’t mean you should, especially when the cost in seeking justice is threatening the principle “and justice for all.”

Comments

• Brought to you by

  • 

• Contributors

  • Katherine Heekin
    The Heekin Law Firm
    
  • Anton Litchfield
    Encore
    
  • Mark Costigan
    U of O
    
  • Paul French
    Bridge City Legal, Inc.
    
  • Seth Row - Litigator & E-Discovery Consultant
    

• Recently Written

  • Orders and Opinions
  • Multimedia
  • Early Case Assessments Using Hosted Email Archiving
  • Proper Choice of Seating For Your E-Discovery Meet and Confer
  • A “Blog-iography”: Best of Commentary on New California State-Court E-Discovery Rules
  • E-Discovery and eCompliance
  • I’ll Put My GPS Up Against Your Radar Any Day

• Archives

  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • September 2008

• Resources

  • ABA Standards of Civil Discovery
  • Applied Discovery
  • Arkfeld
  • Discovery Resources
  • E-Discovery Knowledge Center
  • E-Discovery Law
  • EDRM
  • Federal Rules
  • Ken Withers
  • Kroll
  • Ralph Losey
  • Ride the Lightning
  • State Rules