Case Summary
Items marked as Premium 
are available to registered users. Sign in now for unlimited access.
are available to registered users. Sign in now for unlimited access.
Eastview Healthcare, LLC v. Synertx, Inc., 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 225 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2009).
Email produced by defendants in support of their counterclaims and used by plaintiff to contest the counterclaims could not be used by defendants to contest plaintiff’s claims unless the email was first authenticated by defendants.
Plaintiff filed a breach of contract action against nursing homes, which in turn filed breach of contact claims against plaintiff. The trial court sustained plaintiff’s objections to unauthenticated email attached to responses of the homes to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to plaintiff.
The court affirmed summary judgment for plaintiff. The homes contended that email did not have to be authenticated before it could be used to counter plaintiff’s claim because plaintiff had produced the email. However, according to the court, the homes had produced the email and were relying on it to support their counterclaims and defenses. Thus, the homes were deemed to have admitted to the correctness and authenticity of the email by producing it, but the homes could not use the email against plaintiff without further authentication because plaintiff did not produce the email and did not claim any benefit from the email.
<< Click here to go backPlaintiff filed a breach of contract action against nursing homes, which in turn filed breach of contact claims against plaintiff. The trial court sustained plaintiff’s objections to unauthenticated email attached to responses of the homes to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to plaintiff.
The court affirmed summary judgment for plaintiff. The homes contended that email did not have to be authenticated before it could be used to counter plaintiff’s claim because plaintiff had produced the email. However, according to the court, the homes had produced the email and were relying on it to support their counterclaims and defenses. Thus, the homes were deemed to have admitted to the correctness and authenticity of the email by producing it, but the homes could not use the email against plaintiff without further authentication because plaintiff did not produce the email and did not claim any benefit from the email.
