Authentication of Printouts of Websites and Social Media

Interesting Discovery Decision by Special Master Phil Favro

January 8, 2026

Book Review: Tom O’Connor, “Artificial Intelligence for the Rest of Us”

January 12, 2026

Published by Michael Berman at January 9, 2026

Tags

“Plaintiffs’ evidence of printouts of websites is not presented in an admissible form. Evidence must be authentic to be admissible.” Goldstein v. Hindle, 2026 WL 63116 (D. Md. Jan. 8, 2026)(Crawford, J.). Defendant’s website, video and direct-message via social media evidence was also excluded.

Cross-motions for summary judgment were pending. The Court wrote: “[B]oth sides argue they should prevail on their affirmative case and that the adverse party cannot prove their claims.” Id. at *2. However, “[t]he result is that each party’s claims fail.” Id. at *1.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant made two defamatory statements against Plaintiffs after learning that Mr. Goldstein had an extramarital affair with Defendant’s former spouse, Alissa Hindle…. First, Defendant allegedly published a website (the “Defamatory Website”) that contained statements accusing Plaintiffs of secretly recording the intimate encounters between Mr. Goldstein and Ms. Hindle and sharing the recording with others…. Second, Defendant allegedly made a Facebook post broadcasting the statements made on the Defamatory Website.

Additionally, “Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs created and uploaded YouTube videos disparaging Defendant, and that Plaintiffs created fake Facebook profiles impersonating Defendant and his business, Wellspring Digital, to damage his and Wellspring Digital’s reputations.”

Both parties were pro se. “[O]n summary judgment, a proponent must do one of two things for a court to consider the proponent’s evidence: (1) show that the material is admissible as presented or (2) explain the admissible form that is anticipated.” Id. at *3 (cleaned up).

PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENCE HELD INADMISSIBLE

Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion failed because the evidence was inadmissible:

Plaintiffs did not present their evidence in an admissible form. Plaintiffs have presented printouts from websites, printouts from email and social media, and affidavits to support their claims on summary judgment…. The Court reviews each in turn.

As to the printouts of websites:

Plaintiffs’ evidence of printouts of websites is not presented in an admissible form. Evidence must be authentic to be admissible…. Evidence is authentic if the proponent “produce[s] evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a).

A party intending to prove that a printout of a website or social media post was authored by a particular person, as here, must authenticate the printout in two separate ways. First, the printout must be authenticated “as accurately reflecting the content and image of a specific webpage.” … A party can authenticate a printout under this first step if the printout has a URL and a date, if the party provides an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the printout, or a combination of the two….

Second, in cases in which authorship is essential to the claims at issue, the printout must be authenticated “as having been posted by” the author in question; otherwise, the printout would be irrelevant and thus inadmissible…. Courts typically determine that business records from the website or affidavits attesting to the authorship of the website, along with distinctive features in the printout that tie the website to the alleged author, are necessary to authenticate authorship.

Id. at *4 (citations omitted).

In this case, the identity of the author was critical to the claims. Id. at *4. However, the Court wrote:

Each printout fails to satisfy the first step of authentication—that the printout accurately reflects the content of the webpage. The LinkedIn Printout does not include either the URL or the date on which the printout was created…. The printout of the Defamatory Website contains a date but does not include the URL…. While the Wellspring Digital Printout and Server Printout include the URLs of each website, they do not include the date on which the printouts were created.

Id. at *5.

In addition to the failure to provide supporting affidavits attesting to accuracy, “the printout of the Defamatory Website cannot be authenticated under the second step because the Plaintiffs fail to present evidence that Defendant authored the Defamatory Website, either through a records custodian of the website, an affidavit attesting to authorship, or by some other means.”

“Finally, the Server Printout cannot be authenticated for an additional reason. Courts have repeatedly held that, to authenticate a printout from a website that retrieves data from other websites, a witness must testify to how the retrieval works and to the reliability of the retrieval process.” Id. “The Server Printout purports to show the website godaddy.com, which displays that the Defamatory Website is run by a server from the SailFish website hosting service, but the Plaintiffs fail to provide an affidavit from an employee at godaddy.com attesting to how the website retrieves server information from other sites or to the reliability of that information. Without such an affidavit, the Server Printout cannot be authenticated.” Id.

Because the four printouts were not provided “in admissible form,” the Court held that it could not consider them.

Further: “Plaintiffs have failed to present in admissible form printouts of emails and Facebook posts allegedly made by Defendant…. Like the four printouts discussed above, these printouts have not been authenticated because they are not supported by affidavits, records certifications from Facebook, or other evidence demonstrating that the printouts are what the Plaintiffs say they are…. Absent authentication, Plaintiffs have not presented the emails and Facebook posts in admissible form.” Id. at *6.

Plaintiffs provided three undated, unsigned affidavits. They could not be considered.

Moving to the second stage, the Court wrote: “In addition to failing to present their evidence in admissible form on summary judgment, Plaintiffs have also failed to explain how their evidence would be admissible at trial.” Id. at *6.

Given that federal courts, including this District, have found that “printouts of third-party websites are inherently non-trustworthy without authentication,” the parties here must present a stronger showing to assure the Court that their online items of evidence can be admitted at trial.

Id. at *6 (citations omitted). “Here, Plaintiffs have not explained—in any way—how their website, email, or Facebook printouts could be presented in an admissible form at trial. They have not identified a witness who would testify at trial to authenticate the evidence, nor have they identified any supplemental documents they would present at trial to authenticate the evidence. And they have not alleged that their evidence is self-authenticating. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to make any showing that their online evidence could be presented in an admissible form at trial.” Id. at *7.

In sum: “The website printouts, the email and Facebook printouts, and the affidavits in Plaintiffs’ names are not admissible in evidence as presented on summary judgment, and Plaintiffs have not explained how the evidence could be admitted at trial. As a result, the Court does not consider them in deciding the merits of Plaintiffs’ Motion.” Id.

DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE ALSO INADMISSIBLE

Not to be outdone, Defendant also failed. The Court wrote: “Defendant’s evidence was not presented in an admissible form. Defendant presents three categories of online evidence: website printouts, videos, and a direct message on Facebook.” Id. at *12. Defendant relied on printouts to show an alleged tort. The Court wrote:

As discussed above, authentication of website printouts is often a two-step process. First, a proponent generally authenticates printouts of websites as accurately depicting those websites through a mix of distinctive characteristics and depositions, affidavits, or other testimony based on personal knowledge…. Second, to authenticate authorship of a post on a website, the proponent must typically present certifications from the owner of the website and testimony based on personal knowledge…. Additionally, to authenticate a printout from a website that retrieves data from other websites, a witness must testify to how the retrieval process works and to the reliability of the retrieval process.

Id. The printouts were not authenticated because “Defendant has not presented any depositions, affidavits, declarations, or other evidence testifying to how these printouts were made, to the content of the printouts, or to who authored them. Second, as to the Domain Printout and the Wayback Machine Printout, Defendant has not presented evidence as to how the websites depicted in these printouts gather data or to the reliability of their retrieval processes.” Id.

Defendant also presented “printouts of still images of YouTube and Facebook videos allegedly showing Goldstein defaming Defendant.” However, the Court wrote: “Here, Defendant has failed to authenticate the video evidence. Defendant has not introduced any certificate from a YouTube or Facebook custodian that the videos were posted to either website, nor has Defendant presented any testimony or evidence authenticating the content of the videos.” Id. at *13.

“Finally, Defendant presents a printout purportedly showing a series of Facebook comments….” The comments were purportedly made by a Facebook user, Mr. Kolade. It was also inadmissible: “First, Defendant has not authenticated the printout as accurately portraying the Facebook comment section it represents, nor has Defendant authenticated that Mr. Kolade is the author of the comment in question…. Second, even if the printout had been authenticated, Mr. Kolade’s statements are inadmissible because they are hearsay.” Id. at *14.

Finally, the information was inadmissible because “Defendant did not sufficiently explain how his evidence could be admitted at trial.” Id. Defendant claimed that authentication at trial would be through a forensic expert; however, he did not substantiate that claim. “Here, alarmingly, Plaintiffs state that Defendant never submitted such expert disclosures….. Defendant has failed to rebut this allegation….” Id. at *14.

Ultimately, Defendant’s “position appears to be that the court should have found that it could put [the online evidence] into admissible form because it is easy to imagine how it could,” but Rule 56(c)(2) commands that Defendant must actually explain how he intends to admit the evidence.

Id. Notably, the Court wrote: “Because courts have found online evidence untrustworthy, the proponent must present a stronger showing that online evidence can be admitted at trial.” Id. at *14.

EPILOG

There is substantial guidance available to avoid these errors. The Hon. Paul W. Grimm (ret.) issued a textbook opinion, Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007), which fills 67 pages on Westlaw and covers authentication. See Historical ESI Highlights – Part IX – Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co. (Jun. 1, 2022); accord Authentication of ESI on Motion Compelling Arbitration Despite Factual Dispute (Apr. 26, 2023); Authentication of a Disputed Email and Attachment (Apr. 20, 2023).

Maryland Appellate Courts have also provided guidance: