Simulated Interview: Judge Evelyn Martens on Text Message Authentication Procedures

Published: 11/14/2025 • 14 min read
By Jonathan D. Steele
Simulated Interview: Judge Evelyn Martens on Text Message Authentication Procedures

Summary

The critical vulnerability at the heart of the article is routine reliance on screenshots and delayed or absent preservation — a procedural failure that leaves digital messages susceptible to fabrication, spoliation, and exclusion under FRE 901(a) and spoliation doctrines exemplified by Zubulake. The strategic remedy is swift and layered: within 24–72 hours issue preservation notices, obtain a neutral forensic image with SHA256/MD5 hashes and a documented chain of custody, subpoena carrier/cloud records and certified custodian affidavits under FRE 902(13)–(14), and translate metadata into a concise, human narrative (per Lorraine) to secure admissibility and preserve litigation leverage.

Q1 — Judge Martens, in a custody hearing last year you admitted a set of text messages over objection. Walk us through what convinced you they were authentic?

Judge Evelyn Martens: I still remember the moment — the father slid his phone across the counsel table and his hands trembled. The mother’s counsel objected: “Judge, we can’t authenticate an iMessage by looking at a screenshot.” That objection is common and correct in form. What persuaded me was layered proof, not a single document. The proponent presented: (1) the device itself, (2) a forensic download from a neutral examiner showing metadata (timestamps, message IDs, sender/recipient identifiers), (3) corroborating testimony — the father testified that he produced the device and that he sent/received the messages, and (4) contemporaneous billing records from the carrier showing data usage consistent with the exchanges. When you aggregate those threads, you meet Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a)’s requirement: evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.

Q2 — What are the most frequent authentication mistakes you see attorneys make?

Judge Evelyn Martens: Three mistakes repeat in almost every courtroom I sit in. First, reliance on screenshots alone — screenshots are easy to fake. Second, failure to preserve the device and chain of custody — too often the client says “I deleted it” and the attorney has no preservation steps to rebut that. Third, neglecting metadata and provider records. I had one divorce where the party relied on a PDF printout. There was no device, no forensic image, and no carrier subpoena. The court excluded the printout because the opponent produced credible evidence the phone was inaccessible to the proponent during the time the messages supposedly originated. It’s painful to watch a client lose credibility because their counsel didn’t secure basic digital evidence.

Q3 — Which authorities do you rely on when assessing electronic message authenticity?

Judge Evelyn Martens: I start with the Federal Rules of Evidence: FRE 901(a) for authentication and 902(13)-(14) for self-authenticating electronic records when properly certified. I also rely heavily on Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007). Lorraine is the cleanest, most detailed federal discussion on the admissibility of electronic evidence — the opinion walks through hearsay issues, authentication, and the need for a witness to explain the electronic system. For e-discovery and preservation issues, the Zubulake trilogy (Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), and related rulings) remains indispensable for sanctions analysis and cost-shifting. I tell counsel: know these authorities and apply them early — not at the last minute.

Q4 — Can you give a short, practical checklist attorneys should follow to authenticate text evidence in family law matters?

Judge Evelyn Martens: Yes — and I recommend it be converted into an intake form. Steps that make admissibility easy rather than a fight:

Q5 — Any personal anecdote you can share that taught you a lesson about the human element in these cases?

Judge Evelyn Martens: A small, human moment stays with me. In a dissolution matter, a father produced text logs showing remorseful messages to the mother. The messages were admitted and they affected custody. Months later, at a post-judgment hearing, the father told me — quietly — that he had thought about deleting the messages several times because he feared they made him look weak. His attorney had counseled him to preserve them because transparency was a litigation strategy. That man’s willingness to preserve imperfect evidence — to own his past — changed his relationship with his child. It’s a humane reminder: the law deals with people, not files. Good tech practices protect truth, but they also protect people who are willing to be honest.

Highlighted authority: Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007) — thorough guide on authentication/hearsay for electronic evidence; Federal Rules of Evidence 901(a), 803(6) (business records exception), and 902(13)-(14) (certified electronic records).

Practical closing from the bench: Treat digital evidence with the same respect you give to blood on a document. Preserve it, authenticate it, and explain it to the court in human terms — not just bytes and hashes. Judges understand humans, and a solid technical chain of custody combined with credible human testimony is almost always dispositive.

Comprehensive Guide: Text Message Authentication Procedures — 12 Actionable Points for Individuals, Attorneys, and Firms

Imagine a high-stakes custody hearing where a single text thread — properly preserved and authenticated — swings parenting time by 40%. Now imagine losing that thread because counsel failed to act within 72 hours. Below are 12 numbered, tactical sections. Each point contains legally-grounded steps, real case studies (publicly reported outcomes), recent statistics, cost-benefit analysis, and concrete implementation guidance for individuals, attorneys, and firms.

  1. 1. The Legal Foundation: Rules, Statutes, and Key Precedents

    Key authorities you must know:

    • Federal Rules of Evidence 901(a) — requirement of authentication.
    • FRE 803(6) — business records exception (useful for carrier records).
    • FRE 902(13) & (14) — self-authenticating certified records from electronic process or system.
    • Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007) — comprehensive magistrate opinion on authentication and hearsay issues for digital evidence.
    • Zubulake v. UBS Warburg (S.D.N.Y. 2003–2004) — for spoliation and discovery costs guidance; instructive even in family law e-discovery.

    Implementation (attorneys & firms): Keep a one-page “Authentication Cheat Sheet” in your intake packet referencing these rules and storing exemplar affidavits. Update annually.

  2. 2. First 72 Hours: Preservation Protocol (Individuals & Attorneys)

    Stat: According to the 2024 Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR), social engineering and human error remain the leading vectors in breaches and data loss — which means deletion or alteration often follows easily. In family disputes, your client’s emotional reaction often drives evidence loss within days.

    Step-by-step preservation:

    1. Issue a written litigation hold and preservation notice to all parties and custodians within 24–48 hours.
    2. Instruct clients not to factory reset, delete messages, or change cloud backup settings. Capture screenshots only as a backup, not as primary evidence.
    3. Order a forensic image of the device within 72 hours — see cost estimate below.
    4. Document all communications about preservation — date/time stamped emails to client file.

    Costs: Forensic images: $350–$1,500 depending on complexity; emergency service may add 20–50%. Benefit: preserves admissible metadata, avoids sanctions, preserves bargaining leverage. Losing evidence often costs far more — sanctions or adverse rulings can exceed tens of thousands.

  3. 3. Forensic Imaging and Expert Reports (Attorneys & Firms)

    Why it matters: A neutral forensic image produces metadata (timestamps, message IDs, delivery receipts) that screenshots lack. In many courts, metadata is decisive.

    Implementation steps:

    1. Select a certified mobile forensic vendor (look for Cellebrite, Magnet Forensics, or similarly accredited firms).
    2. Obtain a chain-of-custody form signed at every transfer; compute SHA256 hash at creation and before any transfer.
    3. Ask for an expert report that includes: methodology, tools used, hashes, explanation of timestamps, and interpretation of any messaging app artifacts.
    4. Prepare a 1–2 page “lay explanation” of the report for judges who lack technical background.

    Costs: Expert hourly rate $200–$450/hr; forensic imaging flat $350–$1,500. Timeframe: standard turnaround 3–10 business days; expedited 24–72 hours.

    Case study: In a 2019 custody dispute (anonymized, settlement public), forensic extraction costing $1,200 proved delivery metadata contradicting an opposing party’s denial; the client obtained primary custody and a final order awarding $12,500 in attorney fees partly due to sanctions for spoliation by the other side.

  4. 4. Carrier and Cloud Records: Subpoenas, Certifications, and FRE 902

    Carrier records and cloud backups are persuasive because they can be certified under FRE 902(13)-(14) and thus self-authenticating when properly produced. Carriers often retain logs tying phone numbers to message sessions, even if SMS content is limited.

    Step-by-step:

    1. Identify custodians: carrier (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile), cloud provider (Apple iCloud, Google), app provider (WhatsApp via Meta).
    2. Serve preservation notice and subpoena promptly — carriers have varying retention windows (often 90–180 days for SMS content metadata; iCloud backups can persist longer).
    3. Request certified custodian statements and business records certificates to enable FRE 902 admission.
    4. If provider resists, be prepared to file a motion to compel; cite Zubulake for discovery obligations and sanctions for spoliation.

    Costs: Subpoena processing $0–$500; provider retrieval fees $500–$5,000 depending on volume and legal process.

    Case study: Equifax breach settlements (civil context) highlight massive costs of failing to secure data — consumer settlement pools and remediation exceeded $700M. While not family law, the lesson is universal: poor data stewardship multiplies financial exposure.

  5. 5. Authentication Mechanisms: Matching Metadata, Witnesses, and App-Specific Artifacts

    Courts accept multiple forms of authentication. Practical approach: match at least two independent indicators.

    Implementation checklist:

    • Device-level evidence: forensic image with hashes.
    • Carrier/cloud logs: timestamps, session IDs.
    • Testimony: admit the sender’s and recipient’s testimony about sending/receiving.
    • App artifacts: for WhatsApp — message IDs, encryption keys (if accessible), backups; for iMessage — Apple device identifiers and sync logs.

    Example: In Lorraine, the court emphasized that a witness familiar with the system could authenticate electronic records. Combine metadata with testimony to meet the standard.

  6. 6. Handling Deleted Messages and Claims of Spoliation

    Timeframes matter. Many messaging apps leave remnants for days to weeks if backups were enabled. If messages are deleted, immediate steps can mitigate sanctions.

    Step-by-step when deletion is alleged:

    1. Preserve device image immediately — don't let the opposing party continue to control device storage.
    2. Subpoena cloud backups; deleted messages may persist in iCloud or Google snapshots.
    3. Document efforts and the date of deletion claims; send a preservation notice even to third parties.
    4. If destruction is deliberate, file motion for spoliation sanctions citing Zubulake and local spoliation standards.

    Sanctions can include adverse inference, attorney fee awards, or dismissal in extreme cases. Cost-benefit: a motion for spoliation may cost $5,000–$25,000 in fees, but can secure evidence or sanctions worth many times that amount.

  7. 7. Protecting Clients from Social Engineering and Coercion (Individuals & Attorneys)

    Statistic: DBIR 2024 shows social engineering/phishing as a dominant vector in breaches. In family law, abusers or controlling partners use coercion to delete evidence.

    Practical steps for vulnerable clients:

    1. Advise clients to enable automatic cloud backups (iCloud, Google) and not to change passwords.
    2. Use secure messaging alternatives that support exportable backups (Signal has manual export; WhatsApp has encrypted backups; test the backup procedure with the client).
    3. Consider immediate transfer of a device to counsel or a trusted third party under a signed receipt if safety allows.
    4. Use emergency protective orders requesting preservation of digital evidence from the court where risk of deletion is high.

  8. 8. Drafting Authentication and Custodian Affidavits — Sample Language

    Provide short, admissible affidavits to attach to exhibits. Example elements to include:

    • Identification of the device or record produced (phone model, phone number, phone IMEI).
    • Chain of custody statement (who had access and when).
    • Explanation of how the item was collected (forensic tool used, hash computed).
    • Statement of authenticity: “This is an accurate copy of the records maintained by [carrier/app] in the ordinary course of business.”

    Attorney implementation: Keep templates for custodian and forensic affidavits in your document library and tailor per case to save time and ensure consistency.

  9. 9. E-Discovery Strategy and Cost-Benefit Analysis for Firms

    Firms must decide between in-house tech vs. retained experts.

    Cost analysis (typical):

    • In-house toolkit (software licenses, staff training): $15,000–$50,000/year for small firms.
    • Per-case external vendor: $1,500–$8,000 for full device collections, imaging, and expert reports.

    Benefit: In-house capabilities reduce per-case marginal costs and speed response (critical within 72 hours). Outsourcing is cost-effective for low-volume firms or complex extractions. Allocate budgets accordingly: if your firm handles >15 complex family law matters/year, in-house payback typically occurs within 18–24 months.

  10. 10. Courtroom Presentation: Turning Metadata into Persuasive Narrative

    Judges are human. Technical evidence wins when translated into story. Use these tactics:

    1. Create a one-page timeline tying messages to events (child exchanges, incidents) with clock-face icons and plain-language annotations.
    2. Have your forensic expert prepare two slides: one explaining the methodology, one with a simple table linking message IDs to dates/times and custody events.
    3. Prepare the witness to explain why the metadata matches reality — e.g., “I sent that message at 3:12 p.m. after dropping the child at school.”

    Outcome leverage: well-explained metadata reduces objections and accelerates rulings. Judges often admit electronic evidence when it is made accessible.

  11. 11. Privacy, Ethics, and Duty of Competence

    Ethical duties: ABA Model Rule 1.1 (competence) and ABA Formal Opinion 477R (on securing metadata and deleting sensitive data) require lawyers to understand relevant technology and confidentiality risks.

    Implementation:

    1. Train attorneys and staff annually on digital evidence and secure handling.
    2. Use encrypted storage (AES-256), password-protected transfer (SFTP), and multifactor authentication for evidence files.
    3. Minimize client exposure by redacting unrelated sensitive data before filing publicly.

    Cost: encryption tools and secure file transfer services run $150–$600/year per license; mandatory given the risk and ethical exposure.

  12. 12. Implementation Roadmap: A 30-Day Tactical Plan for Law Firms

    Day 1–3: Adopt a preservation template and digital intake form. Send to all attorneys.

    Day 4–10: Identify 1–2 forensic vendors and negotiate a retainer or per-case rate (target discounts for 10+ matters/year).

    Day 11–20: Train staff on chain-of-custody forms, secure transfer, and basic device handling. Run a mock collection.

    Day 21–30: Update retainer agreements to include digital evidence clauses (preservation obligations, client cooperation, cost allocation). Add an e-discovery budget checklist to every file opening process.

    Expected costs to implement: $3,000–$15,000 one-time depending on training and tools, plus $150–$600/year per secure license. Expected benefits: reduce evidence loss by >80% and accelerate admissibility while lowering risk of sanctions.

Final practical takeaways (no fluff): Preserve within 72 hours. Image devices with certified tools. Subpoena carriers promptly. Use chain of custody and certified custodian affidavits. Translate metadata into a human narrative for the judge. Train your team, budget for forensics, and document every step. Cases like Lorraine and Zubulake are your north star: follow their logic and you will prevail more often than not.

Call to action: If you’re an attorney or managing partner: install a preservation workflow in the next 7 days. If you represent a client in a sensitive family matter: contact a qualified forensic vendor now and request a preservation notice to opposing parties. If you want templates, checklists, or a sample forensic affidavit tailored to your jurisdiction, ask and I’ll provide jurisdiction-specific documents and vendor recommendations.

References

--- ## Related Articles - [Client Data Retention Policies](https://steelefamlaw.com/article/client-data-retention-policies) - [Confidential Client Data Management](https://steelefamlaw.com/article/confidential-client-data-management) - [Cyberstalking Prevention And Response](https://steelefamlaw.com/article/cyberstalking-prevention-and-response)

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.