FRE 902(13) Is the Authentication Rule for Blockchain Timestamps. Most Litigators Don't Use It.
Teams often assume blockchain timestamps will need expert witness authentication. The deposition prep, the Daubert-proofing, the foundational hearing. That's a real cost for what should be routine documentation.
FRE 902(13) provides a different path.
What the 2017 Amendments Actually Added
The Federal Rules of Evidence were amended in 2017 to add two self-authentication rules for machine-generated records. They don't get cited as often as they should.
FRE 902(13) provides self-authentication for "a record generated by an electronic process or system that produces an accurate result." Authentication happens through a written certification from someone with knowledge of the process. No live expert. No foundational hearing. The certification does the work.
FRE 902(14) covers data copied from an electronic device or storage medium, authenticated the same way: written certification, no live testimony required.
The advisory notes are specific about the intent. Requiring live expert testimony to authenticate routine machine-generated records imposes costs without meaningfully testing reliability. Congress drew a distinction between disputes about whether a process works correctly and presenting evidence that it does. The certification path handles the latter. Adversarial challenge handles the former.
How This Applies to Blockchain Timestamps
A blockchain timestamp is a machine-generated record. The hash calculation, the transaction broadcast, the block inclusion process. Each step follows deterministic rules that produce verifiable outputs.
The certification requirement under 902(13) can be satisfied by the platform provider. Someone with knowledge of how the timestamping process works can certify that the system accurately records when evidence was submitted and anchored. The blockchain transaction ID, the merkle proof, the block confirmation. All machine-generated. All verifiable through public records.
This doesn't eliminate challenges to admissibility. If opposing counsel wants to argue that the timestamping process is unreliable, they can still make that case. But the burden shifts. The proponent doesn't need to present foundational testimony just to get the timestamp admitted. The certification handles authentication. The adversarial process handles reliability disputes.
Why This Matters for Evidence Documentation
Litigation teams routinely spend thousands on expert witnesses to authenticate what should be straightforward timestamps. A blockchain anchor creates a public record that the evidence existed at a specific time. The math is verifiable. The process is documented. The transaction is permanent.
FRE 902(13) was designed for exactly this scenario. Machine-generated records that follow reliable processes shouldn't require live expert testimony for basic authentication. The rule provides the framework. The certification provides the foundation.
The question isn't whether blockchain timestamps can be authenticated under FRE 902(13). It's whether litigation teams know to use this path instead of defaulting to expert witnesses.
Most don't. They should.