FRE 902(13) vs 902(14): What's the Difference? (Plain-English Guide)

July 12, 2026

Federal Rules of Evidence 902(13) and 902(14) arrived together, on December 1, 2017, and they solve the same expensive problem: getting electronic evidence past an authenticity objection without flying a witness to trial. Because they travel as a pair, they get blurred together. They should not be. They cover different things, and the strongest evidence packages use both.

This is a plain-English guide to what each rule covers, how they differ, and what a certification actually has to contain. If you want the full courtroom context, start with our pillar guide to authenticating website screenshots under FRE 902.

The problem both rules solve

Before December 2017, authenticating electronic evidence under Rule 901 typically meant live testimony: the person who made the capture, or a forensic examiner who could vouch for the process. John Haried, writing in the journal Judicature as the amendments were adopted, described the payoff of the new approach: “If the adversary did not dispute the accuracy or reliability of the process that produced the exhibit, the proponent would not need to call the forensic technician as a witness to establish the authenticity of the exhibit.”

Both rules do this the same way: a written certification from a qualified person, prepared before trial, served on the other side with notice. What differs is the kind of electronic evidence each covers.

Rule 902(13): records a system generated

The rule text covers “a record generated by an electronic process or system that produces an accurate result, as shown by a certification of a qualified person that complies with the certification requirements of Rule 902(11) or (12).”

The operative word is generated. 902(13) is for the outputs of machines and processes: system logs, access and entry records, data generated by an app, the output of an automated web capture tool. The certification describes the process or system and attests that it produces an accurate result.

Think of 902(13) as answering the question: can we trust what this machine produced?

Rule 902(14): data copied from somewhere

The rule text covers “data copied from an electronic device, storage medium, or file, if authenticated by a process of digital identification, as shown by a certification of a qualified person that complies with the certification requirements of Rule 902(11) or (12).”

The operative word is copied. 902(14) is for showing that a copy is identical to its original: a forensic image of a phone, a cloned hard drive, an exported file. The “process of digital identification” doing the work is, in practice, the cryptographic hash. The advisory committee notes spell it out: “If the hash values for the original and copy are the same, it is highly improbable that the original and copy are not identical.” The notes add that the rule “is flexible enough to allow certifications through processes other than comparison of hash value, including by other reliable means of identification provided by future technology.”

Think of 902(14) as answering the question: can we trust that this copy matches the original?

Side by side

The two rules overlap more than the table suggests, in one direction. As Judge Paul Grimm, Professor Daniel Capra, and Gregory Joseph put it in their Baylor Law Review treatment of the amendments, a copy is itself a record generated by an electronic process, so most 902(14) evidence could arguably ride under 902(13) too; the reverse is not true, because “records generated by an electronic system may well not be a ‘copy’ of anything.” Copies got their own rule, the same authors explain, because authenticating a copy through hash value “is unique and specific.”

What the certification has to contain

Both rules borrow their mechanics from Rule 902(11), and the advisory notes are precise about what that borrowing means: the certification must contain “information that would be sufficient to establish authenticity were that information provided by a witness at trial.” In other words, write down exactly what a live witness would have said about the process, and have a qualified person sign it; an unsworn declaration under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 works.

Then comes the part practitioners forfeit most often: notice. Rule 902(11) requires the proponent to give the adverse party “reasonable written notice” of the intent to offer the record and to make the record and certification available for inspection, so the other side has “a fair opportunity to challenge them.” The advisory notes describe the design goal plainly: the procedure lets the parties “determine in advance of trial whether a real challenge to authenticity will be made,” and plan accordingly. Skip the notice and you have surrendered the shortcut.

What these rules do not do

Three honest limits, all straight from the sources.

First, authenticity only. The advisory notes state that a certification “can establish only that the proffered item has satisfied the admissibility requirements for authenticity,” and the opponent “remains free to object to admissibility of the proffered item on other grounds,” listing hearsay, relevance, and, in criminal cases, the right to confrontation. Getting past authenticity is the entry ticket, not the verdict.

Second, no new standard. Grimm, Capra, and Joseph again: “These new amendments do not change the standards for authentication of electronic evidence. Rather, they change the manner in which the proponent’s submission on authenticity can be made.” If your capture process could not survive a live cross-examination, writing it down does not improve it.

Third, federal rules. Many states have adopted parallel provisions, but adoption is not universal and details differ. Check your jurisdiction before relying on the shortcut in state court.

Where a web capture fits: use both rules

A well-made web capture is the rare exhibit that both rules were built for, one on each flank.

The capture process is 902(13) territory: an automated system retrieved the page at a recorded URL and time, rendered it, and produced the archive, and the certification describes that system and why its result is accurate. The capture files are 902(14) territory: every file was fingerprinted with cryptographic hashes at capture, so any later copy, including the one handed to opposing counsel, can be certified as identical to the original by hash match.

That is exactly how Permavault packages a capture. A neutral automated system captures the page, records URL, time, and process, and fingerprints every file with cryptographic hashes at capture, stored on a permanent decentralized network of roughly 300 independent nodes, funded by a long-term storage endowment. Each capture is $4.99, with an optional Certificate of Authenticity from $9. The Legal tier adds a qualified electronic timestamp from Disig a.s., an EU-listed qualified trust service provider, applied to the signed capture manifest, plus an independent Bitcoin-anchored timestamp and a declaration template designed to support authentication under FRE 902(13) and 902(14). Under eIDAS Article 41, a qualified electronic timestamp carries a presumption of the accuracy of its date and time in EU courts.

Two rules, one package: the process certification for how the capture was made, the hash certification for everything that happens to the files afterward.

This article is general information about the Federal Rules of Evidence, not legal advice for any specific matter. Admissibility always depends on the facts, the jurisdiction, and the judge. Rule text and advisory committee notes quoted from the current official edition of the Federal Rules of Evidence.