Maryland’s rules establish specific procedures for handling digital media in court proceedings, motions, and appeals, including approved storage platforms, record preservation, access, and the treatment of audio, audiovisual, and video exhibits.
In Frankhouse v. Jobe, the District of Maryland addressed when video evidence must be produced in discovery, holding that a cell extraction video with predominantly substantive value must be produced before the plaintiff’s deposition.
The District of Maryland in Moore v. WMATA denied spoliation sanctions despite finding a breach of the duty to preserve video evidence. The ruling emphasized the need for concrete proof of relevance and prejudice.
Klock v. Wal-Mart examines whether spoliation of video evidence occurred after a store manager claimed no video captured a slip and fall incident. The court ruled against sanctions, but this analysis questions whether the duty to preserve was properly triggered.
In the case of Harrod v. State, the Appeals Court of Maryland ruled regarding the admissibility of composite video evidence and the role of police officers in narrating it during the trial. They upheld the officers' testimony, stating that their familiarity with the area provided the necessary foundation for their narration.
In the case of Felder v. MGM National Harbor, the court found that overwriting video footage after 14 days did not constitute spoliation. The ruling highlights the necessity of prompt preservation demands when relying on video evidence.