2007), is a case in which a landmark decision about the admissibility and authentication of digital evidence was set down in the form of a 100-page opinion[1] by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm.

While Markel American Insurance Company already awarded costs for repair, more damage was found at a later stage when the yacht was removed from the water.

Both parties moved for summary judgment, providing documentary evidence in the form of the arbitration agreement, award, and copies of e-mail correspondence between counsel.

Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm stated that although the language of the arbitration agreement is indeed ambiguous enough to proceed with a trial, neither party provided admissible evidence to support the facts set forth in their respective motions for summary judgment under rule 56[2] of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the following reasons: Both motions were dismissed without prejudice.

When no preliminary determination is made, five more distinct yet interrelated evidence rules must be considered: With this opinion, Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm has established a detailed baseline for the use of ESI before his court.