See also: BUSINESS RECORDS; TELEX MESSAGES

§ 1.  As Hearsay

An e-mail transmission has been held to be inadmissible under the business records exception due to the fact that it is not a systematic business activity.{footnote}Monotype Corp. PLC v. International Typeface Corp., 43 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 1994) (employee’s E-mail to superor making derogatory remarks about co-worker also excluded as unfairly prejudicial){/footnote}

§ 2.  Relevance

In wrongful discharge suits, e-mail messages between the plaintiff-employee and superiors or other employees have been considered on the issue of the defendant’s motive.{footnote}Aviles v. McKenzie, No. C-91-2013-DLJ, 1992 WL 715248 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 1992) (plaintiff’s messages regarding company’s improper business practices considered in retaliatory discharge case); Strauss v. Microsoft Corp., No. 91 Civ. 5928, 1995 WL 326492, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 1995) (denying motion in limine; suggestive remarks from superior to plaintiff); Strauss v. Microsoft Corp., 856 F. Supp. 821, 825 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (same); Strauss v. Microsoft Corp., 814 F. Supp. 1186, 1194 (S.D. N.Y. 1993) (same).

Plymouth Police Brotherhood v. Labor Relations Commission, 630 N.E.2d 599 (Mass. 1994) (plaintiff’s insubordinate derogatory messages to fellow officers).{/footnote}  Similarly, in one employment discrimination suit, the court considered e-mail messages relating to the plaintiff.{footnote}Boone v. Federal Express Corp., 59 F.3d 84 (8th Cir. 1995).{/footnote}   In a murder prosecution, the defendant’s e-mail messages to his secretary were held admissible to show the defendant’s motive for murdering his wife.{footnote}Allen v. States, 862 P.2d 487 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1657 (1994).{/footnote}

Bibliography

Note, Admissibility of Electronic Mail, 64 Fordham L.Rev. 2285 (1996).