Material produced by a party in response to a demand pursuant to article thirty-one of this chapter for material authored or otherwise created by such party shall be presumed authentic when offered into evidence by an adverse party. Such presumption may be rebutted by a preponderance of evidence proving such material is not authentic, and shall not preclude any other objection to admissibility.
R 4540-a.Presumption of authenticity based on a party’s production of material authored or otherwise created by the party.
Article 45. Evidence · Last amended 2019 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceCPLR 4540-a presumes that documents a party turns over in discovery - text messages, emails, or other material it authored or created - are authentic when the opposing side later offers them into evidence, shifting the burden to the producing party to prove otherwise.
Full Text of CPLR 4540-a
Plain-English Summary
Before 2019, a party who received documents in discovery still had to independently authenticate them before using them at trial, even when the documents came straight from the opposing party's own files. CPLR 4540-a flips that burden for a specific category: material produced by a party, in response to an Article 31 discovery demand, that the party itself authored or created. When the other side offers that material into evidence, the law now presumes it is authentic.
The presumption is rebuttable. The party who produced the material can still challenge its authenticity, but has to do so with a preponderance of the evidence showing it is not what it appears to be, a heavier lift than objecting and forcing the opponent to prove the point from scratch. The rule also makes clear it does not close off other objections to admissibility; authenticity is only one hurdle among several a document has to clear.
The rule reflects how much litigation now runs on emails, texts, and internal records that parties hand over during document demands. Rather than relitigate authenticity for every self-produced email chain, CPLR 4540-a lets the producing party's own disclosure carry the presumption.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does CPLR 4540-a mean any document produced in discovery is presumed authentic?
No. The presumption applies only to material a party authored or created and then produced in response to an Article 31 discovery demand, when the opposing party offers it into evidence.
Can a party still challenge the authenticity of its own produced documents?
Yes. The presumption can be rebutted, but the producing party must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the material is not authentic.
Does this rule apply to emails and text messages?
It applies to any material a party authored or created, which commonly includes emails, text messages, and internal business records produced in discovery.
Does a presumption of authenticity mean the document is automatically admissible?
No. The statute preserves any other objection to admissibility, so authenticity is only one requirement a document still has to satisfy.
Why was CPLR 4540-a added to the CPLR?
It was added in 2018 to save parties from having to independently authenticate documents at trial that the opposing party's own discovery production already vouches for.
Amendment History
L 2018, ch 219, § 1, effective January 1, 2019.
Source & verification. Provision text, History, and Advisory
Committee Notes are reproduced verbatim from the Consolidated Laws of New York.
Last verified July 21, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: presumption of authenticity for discovery documents New Yorkauthenticating emails produced in discovery NYself-authenticating documents CPLRparty-produced documents evidence trial New York