Authenticate Google Maps

 The below is a quote making Google maps admissible.  

“[w]e take judicial notice of a Google map and satellite image as a ‘source[ ] whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned’ ” for purposes of this case. United States v. Perea–Rey, 680 F.3d 1179, 1182 n. 1 (9th Cir.2012) (second alteration in original) (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 201(b)); see Citizens for Peace in Space v. City of Colo. Springs, 477 F.3d 1212, 1218 n. 2 (10th Cir.2007) (taking judicial notice of an online distance calculation that relied on Google Maps data); United States v. Piggie, 622 F.2d 486, 488 (10th Cir.1980) (“Geography has long been peculiarly susceptible to judicial notice for the obvious reason that geographic locations are facts which are not generally controversial....”); see also David J. Dansky, The Google Knows Many Things: Judicial Notice in the Internet Era, 39 Colo. Law. 19, 24 (2010) (“Most courts are willing to take judicial notice of geographical facts and distances from private commercial websites such as MapQuest, Google Maps, and Google Earth.”). We do this here only to determine the “general location” of relevant events. Perea–Rey, 680 F.3d at 1182 n. 1. The map in the appendix identifies the approximate location of the southern checkpoint—150 yards south of the mayor's driveway—based on Google Maps's “Distance Measurement Tool.” Cf. Citizens for Peace in Space, 477 F.3d at 1218 n. 2.

Death of Tennessee Tortfeasor

 The Tennessee Court of Appeals released its decision today in Mott. v. Luethke, No. E2020-00317-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2021).  The syllabus from the slip opinion reads:

Following an automobile accident that occurred on March 22, 2016, the plaintiff filed a cause of action, in the form of a civil summons, in the Washington County General Sessions Court . . . on March 3, 2017, seeking an award of damages from the defendant, who was the other driver involved in the car accident. Unbeknownst to the plaintiff, however, the defendant had passed away in December 2016. On January 31, 2018, the plaintiff filed a “re-issue[d]” summons to be served upon the administrator ad litem of the decedent’s estate. After the matter was subsequently transferred to Washington County Circuit Court . . . , the trial court granted the administrator’s motion for summary judgment, determining that the plaintiff had failed to timely file his tort action against the personal representative within the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court consequently dismissed the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. The plaintiff has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Here is a link to the slip opinion:

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/vernon_mot_v._k_jeffrey_luethke_esq._et_al..pdf  

This opinion is a must-read one for any lawyer who must deal with the issue of revivor of a claim against a tortfeasor who dies before suit is filed under Tennessee substantive law.  

Service of Discovery Response Via Email

 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(D) states, in relevant part, that a party may serve pleadings or discovery on an adverse party by, “delivering a copy by any other means, including electronic means, consented to in writing by the person served. Service by electronic means is complete on transmission; . . .” Alliance Communs. Coop., Inc. v. Global Crossing Telcomms., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16467, 27-28 (D.S.D. Feb. 27, 2009).

 In Alliance Communs. Coop., Inc. v. Global Crossing Telcomms., Inc., the Plaintiff served the Defendant discovery requests by email.  The Defendants challenged the service by email claiming they never consented in writing to electronic service. Alliance Communs. Coop., Inc., 27.

 The Court rejected the Defendant’s arguments they never consented to electronic service of process.  The Court highlighted the fact that when the defense attorneys signed the Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel they also completed an attorney registration form for electronic court filing.  The attorney registration form included a provision for “consent to service by electronic means as substitute for service…” Alliance Communs. Coop., Inc., 28.

 The Court found the Defendant had consented in writing to receive service of process by email because of the attorney registration form the attorneys completed.  Further, there was no evidence of any prejudice by receiving the discovery requests by email.  Alliance Communs. Coop., Inc., 29.

Statute of Interest

 Miss. Code Ann. § 63-3-405 (Rev. 2013). If there is an accident with damage to any vehicle or person, the “driver shall render to any person injured in such accident reasonable assistance, including the carrying, or the making of arrangements for the carrying, of such person to a physician, surgeon or hospital for medical or surgical treatment if it is apparent that such treatment is necessary or if such carrying is requested by the injured person.” Id. (emphasis added). The statute also includes a “samaritan” provision providing immunity to the driver so long as they “in good faith and in the exercise of reasonable care” provide care or transportation. Id.