United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-30568

David Weinhoffer, as liquidating trustee of Offshore Specialty 

Fabricators L.L.C., 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Davie Shoring, Incorporated, 

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:19-CV-11175

Before Higginbotham, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit

Judges.

Patrick E. Higginbotham, Circuit Judge:

David Weinhoffer and Davie Shoring, Inc., dispute the terms of an

online auction. We review whether evidence of the terms was properly 

admitted. Because the district court abused its discretion by improperly 

admitting evidence and taking judicial notice of the terms, we reverse the 

judgment of the district court and remand this case for further proceedings. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 20, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-30568 Document: 00516174177 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2022
No. 20-30568

2

I.

Offshore Specialty Fabricators L.L.C. (“OSF”) was subject to a 

Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan administered by liquidating trustee David 

Weinhoffer. OSF contracted with Henderson Auctions to auction off a large 

housing module. Henderson advertised and hosted the auction on its website, 

but when auction participants clicked on the link to bid, they were directed 

to Proxibid, a third-party website, where they could view the auction’s terms 

and conditions and place their bids. Among these terms was a term declaring 

that bidders would be liable for only 20% of the bid price in the event of a 

breach of contract. Instead of using the website, Warren Davie, Davie 

Shoring’s principal, placed the winning bid of $177,500 on a phone call with 

a Henderson employee. After the auction concluded, Davie Shoring refused 

to pay for the module when it proved difficult to remove from storage. 

Weinhoffer brought suit as OSF’s liquidating trustee, seeking

recovery of Davie Shoring’s bid of $177,500. Weinhoffer’s breach of sale 

contract claim was tried in a bench trial. Davie Shoring argued that the terms 

of the auction limited the damages to 20% of the winning bid, here $35,500. 

Davie testified that he read the auction terms, including the 20% damages 

limitation, on Henderson’s website before bidding. At trial, Davie Shoring 

introduced the auction terms and conditions in two forms: (1) as an internet 

printout labeled “Exhibit 41” and (2) as an archived webpage from a website 

known as the “Wayback Machine,” an online archive of web pages.1

Davie Shoring introduced Exhibit 41 through the testimony of Renita 

Martin, Henderson’s office manager. However, Martin testified that Exhibit 

1 “The Wayback Machine is an online digital archive of web pages. It is run by the 

Internet Archive, a nonprofit library in San Francisco, California.” Mojave Desert Holdings, 

LLC v. Crocs, Inc., 844 F. App’x 343, 346 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Case: 20-30568 Document: 00516174177 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2022
No. 20-30568

3

41 had not been in Henderson’s possession “because the auction was no 

longer up on [Henderson’s] website.” Instead, Martin searched for the 

auction terms on Proxibid’s website to produce them in response to the

subpoena. Martin explained that even if the auction page were still live on 

Henderson’s website, the terms and conditions would only be accessible if 

one clicked on the link to Proxibid’s separate website.

Weinhoffer objected to Exhibit 41, contending that it was irrelevant, 

unauthenticated, and hearsay. The district court ruled that Martin had 

properly authenticated Exhibit 41 because, although she was not its author, 

her job description indicated that she was a proper custodian. The district 

court also ruled that Exhibit 41 was within one of Federal Rule of Evidence

803’s hearsay exceptions.

Davie Shoring’s counsel requested that, in addition to admitting 

Exhibit 41, the district court take judicial notice of the same terms in an 

archived version of the Proxibid webpage, available on the Wayback 

Machine. The district court took judicial notice of the terms and conditions 

as they appeared in the archived webpage, explaining that the archived 

webpage was a “source[] whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned” 

under Federal Rule of Evidence 201.

The district court relied on Exhibit 41 to determine that the “Special 

Terms” provided “plaintiff’s sole and exclusive remedy” for breach, 

limiting Weinhoffer’s recovery to 20% of Davie Shoring’s bid. The district 

court entered judgment for Weinhoffer in the amount of $35,500 plus costs. 

Weinhoffer timely appealed.

II.

“We review evidentiary rulings only for abuse of discretion and will 

reverse a judgment on the basis of evidentiary rulings only if the challenged 

Case: 20-30568 Document: 00516174177 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/20/2022
No. 20-30568

4

ruling affects a substantial right of the party.”2 We apply the same standard 

when reviewing a district court’s use of judicial notice.3 “In a bench trial, 

reversal is only warranted if all of the competent evidence is insufficient to 

support the judgment, or if it affirmatively appears that the incompetent 

evidence induced the court to make an essential finding which it otherwise 

would not have made.”4

III.

We first address whether the admission of Exhibit 41 was proper 

under the Federal Rules of Evidence. As Exhibit 41 was not properly 

authenticated, we reverse the district court.

A.

Authentication is a condition precedent to admissibility.

5 The party 

offering an exhibit must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that 

the item is what the proponent claims it to be.

6 Where a website or electronic 

source is concerned, “testimony by a witness with direct knowledge of the 

source, stating that the exhibit fairly and fully reproduces it, may be enough 

to authenticate.”7 Although a witness need not be a document’s author to 

authenticate it for purposes of Rule 901,8 we have observed that a witness

2 S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Chabert, 973 F.2d 441, 448 (5th Cir. 1992).

3 Ctr. for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. BP Am. Prod. Co., 704 F.3d 413, 422 (5th Cir. 

2013).

4 S. Pac. Transp. Co., 973 F.2d at 448.

5 United States v. Jackson, 636 F.3d 687, 693 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 

901(a)).

6 Id.

7 Thompson v. Bank of America Nat. Ass’n, 783 F.3d 1022, 1027 (5th Cir. 2015).

8 United States v. Duncan, 919 F.2d 981, 986 (5th Cir. 1990).

Case: 20-30568 Document: 00516174177 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/20/2022
No. 20-30568

5

attempting to authenticate online content as evidence was unlikely to have 

the requisite direct knowledge where that content was created and 

maintained by a third party.9

Martin’s testimony is the only way Davie Shoring attempted to 

authenticate Exhibit 41. However, Martin had no personal knowledge of the 

terms applicable to the auction. Martin had to search a third party’s website 

to obtain the terms because Henderson did not have them in its possession. 

Moreover, Martin’s testimony indicates that she was unfamiliar with 

Proxibid’s website and that she needed the assistance of a colleague to locate 

the terms. Thus, Martin’s authentication testimony only amounts to an 

affirmation of her memory that Exhibit 41 is what she found on the internet.

Although the standard for authentication is low, Martin had 

inadequate direct knowledge to authenticate Exhibit 41. Davie Shoring could 

have avoided running afoul of Rule 901 by calling someone with more direct 

knowledge of Proxibid’s recordkeeping. The district court abused its 

discretion by relying on inadmissible evidence when it reduced Weinhoffer’s 

damages; we accordingly reverse its ruling.

B.

Although Exhibit 41 was inadmissible due to improper authentication, 

we write further for the benefit of the parties and the district court following 

remand. At trial, Weinhoffer’s counsel also objected to Exhibit 41 as hearsay. 

Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible, but Rule 803 provides exceptions 

to this prohibition.10 The district court ruled that Exhibit 41 “fits under

Federal Rule of Evidence 803” because Martin was a proper custodian who 

9 Thompson, 783 F.3d at 1027.

10 Fed. R. Evid. 803.

Case: 20-30568 Document: 00516174177 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/20/2022
No. 20-30568

6

gave testimony at trial regarding the exhibit’s origins. The district court did 

not specify which exception applied, but the business records exception in

Rule 803(6) is the only exception Davie Shoring cites on appeal. 

Rule 803(6)(D) requires that a custodian or qualified witness testify as

to an exhibit’s ability to qualify as a business record. Weinhoffer argues that 

Martin was not a proper custodian or qualified witness for Exhibit 41. This 

Court has explained that a “qualified witness is one who can explain the 

record keeping system of the organization and vouch that the requirements 

of Rule 803(6) are met.”11 This requires the witness to be “familiar with the 

record keeping procedures of the organization”12

Martin is not a proper custodian or qualified witness as to Exhibit 41 

as a business record. Martin was Henderson’s employee, but Henderson did 

not have custody of the record contained in Exhibit 41; Proxibid did. Martin 

was not familiar with Proxibid’s record keeping procedures and cannot testify

that the other requirements of the Rule 803(6) are met. Because the district 

court’s ruling that Exhibit 41 “fit under 803” was a legal error, it was an 

abuse of discretion.13

IV.

In addition to admitting Exhibit 41 into evidence, the district court 

took judicial notice of the terms from an archived webpage on the premise 

that the Wayback Machine constitutes a source whose accuracy cannot 

reasonably be questioned as required by Rule 201(b)(2). None of our sister 

circuits have squarely addressed whether archival internet sources like the 

11 United States v. Iredia, 866 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).

12 United States v. Brown, 553 F.3d 768, 793 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations 

omitted).

13 Marlin v. Moody Nat. Bank, N.A., 533 F.3d 374, 377 (5th Cir. 2008).

Case: 20-30568 Document: 00516174177 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/20/2022
No. 20-30568

7

Wayback Machine possess the “high degree of indisputability [that] is the 

essential prerequisite” of judicial notice.14 A brief Federal Circuit order 

denied a motion to take judicial notice of content from the Wayback Machine 

because it was not first offered to the district court.15 Many district courts

have since relied on that Federal Circuit decision to justify taking judicial 

notice of an archived webpage, even though the Federal Circuit did not hold 

that taking judicial notice of archived information was appropriate.

16

However, other district courts have held that evidence from the Wayback 

Machine “is not so reliable and self-explanatory that it may be an appropriate 

candidate for judicial notice.”17 In this circuit, a district court found that 

documents from the Wayback Machine were not appropriate for judicial 

notice, citing the Wayback Machine’s terms of use which disclaim any 

guarantees of accuracy regarding content stored there.18

A more recent Federal Circuit decision discussed whether Wayback 

Machine content was publicly accessible.

19 At issue was whether an exhibit 

was authenticated as identical to the document viewed by the patent 

14 Fed. R. Evid. 201 (advisory committee notes to the 1972 amendments).

15 Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Shipley, 394 F. App’x 713 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Juniper cited 

O’Toole v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 499 F.3d 1218 (10th Cir. 2007), but the object of 

judicial notice in O’Toole was historical data actively available on the defendant’s website, 

not information coming from an internet archive.

16 See e.g. Pohl v. MH Sub I, LLC, 332 F.R.D. 713, 716 (N.D. Fla. 2019); In re Methyl 

Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 07 CIV. 10470, 2013 WL 6869410, at *4 

(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2013).

17 My Health, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., No. 15-CV-80-JDP, 2015 WL 9474293, at *4 

(W.D. Wis. Dec. 28, 2015); see also Nassar v. Nassar, No. 3:14-CV-1501-J-34MCR, 2017 

WL 26859, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2017).

18 Ward v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. 4:20-CV-00371-O, 2020 WL 8300505, at *1 (N.D. 

Tex. Oct. 16, 2020).

19 Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd., 8 F.4th 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Case: 20-30568 Document: 00516174177 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/20/2022
No. 20-30568

8

examiner and whether the exhibit could be prior art. There, the Federal 

Circuit held that judicial notice of the Wayback Machine could be used to 

establish that an otherwise authenticated exhibit was publicly accessible on 

the webpage’s archive date as determined by a patent examiner who was 

“trained and required to determine publication dates.”20 Here, the Wayback 

Machine content containing the auction terms has not been otherwise 

authenticated.

Beyond the context of judicial notice, our sister circuits have allowed

district courts to rely on archived webpages where someone with personal 

knowledge of the reliability of the archive service has been authenticated 

pursuant to Rule 901.21 This reliance on personal knowledge indicates that 

exhibits derived from these sources are not inherently or self-evidently 

reliable in the same way as documents designated as self-authenticating by 

Rule 902.

Here, there was no testimony to authenticate the archived webpage.22

Our sister circuits’ decisions that the Wayback Machine is not selfauthenticating are persuasive in the context of judicial notice. In sum, the 

district court erred in taking judicial notice of the terms because a private 

internet archive falls short of being a source whose accuracy cannot

reasonably be questioned as required by Rule 201.

20 Id. at 1374–75.

21 See United States v. Gasperini, 894 F.3d 482, 490 (2d Cir. 2018); Specht v. Google 

Inc., 747 F.3d 929, 933 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v. Bansal, 663 F.3d 634, 667–68 (3d 

Cir. 2011).

22 The Wayback Machine’s “Using The Wayback Machine” webpage instructs

users on how to request affidavits to authenticate Wayback Machine pages as “certified 

records for use in legal proceedings.” See Internet Archive, Using the Wayback Machine, 

http://help.archive.org/hc/en-us/articles/360004651732-Using-The-Wayback-Machine

(last visited January 20, 2022).

Case: 20-30568 Document: 00516174177 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/20/2022
No. 20-30568

9

V.

Finally, we turn to whether these errors affected Weinhoffer’s 

substantial rights.23 The district court relied on Exhibit 41, judicial notice of 

the Wayback Machine, and Martin’s testimony as the primary bases for its 

decision. While the testimony of Warren Davie may have further supported 

the district court’s decision, it affirmatively appears that incompetent 

evidence induced the district court to make an essential finding regarding the 

auction terms that it otherwise would not have made.24 Accordingly, the 

errors were not harmless and they affected Weinhoffer’s substantial rights.25

VI.

We REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND

the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

23 Bocanegra v. Vicmar Servs., Inc., 320 F.3d 581, 584 (5th Cir. 2003).

24 S. Pac. Transp. Co., 973 F.2d at 448.

25 Carlson v. Bioremedi Therapeutic Sys., Inc., 822 F.3d 194, 202 (5th Cir. 2016).

Case: 20-30568 Document: 00516174177 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/20/2022