The e-Discovery and Information Governance Law Review: Argentina
Discovery is defined as 'compulsory disclosure, at a party's request, of information that relates to the litigation'.2 This pretrial stage comprises requests for admission of certain facts, performance of interrogatories, requests for production of documents and depositions, among other things. Although this procedure as defined is not applicable in Argentina yet, since the admissibility of evidence is discussed once the judicial process has started, and not at a previous stage as may occur in countries such as the United States, there are certain tools that allow the production or collection of evidence prior to the formal commencement of a litigation.
One of the ways to obtain evidence prior to the commencement of proceedings is through preliminary investigations, which provide the opportunity to obtain information needed for a claim or response, without which the process could not take place. These measures are available for both potential plaintiffs and defendants.
Another device designed by legislation for the collection or production of preliminary evidence is the legal figure of anticipated proof, which will only be admitted in cases where it is proved that there are justified reasons to believe that it will be impossible or very difficult to produce the evidence during a litigation.3
Finally, parties may make use of interim measures4 both before or after a claim is filed to protect a party's assets, rights or proof when there is a reasonable doubt about the possibility of that means of proof being available and undamaged when the production of the rest of the evidence takes place. They are usually granted without the prior involvement and participation of the counterparty.
The above measures are available for various means of evidence, including electronically stored information (ESI). ESI can be described as information created, manipulated, communicated, stored and best utilised in digital form, requiring the use of computer hardware and software.5 Considering the vulnerability and the possibility of alteration and elimination of ESI, these measures have proven to be extremely useful for its preservation.
Year in review
Argentina lacks a specific regime regarding ESI, and there has been little legislative activity in recent years regarding the treatment of ESI as evidence in court proceedings. This lack of legislation was aggravated by the sanitary emergency declared in mid-March 2020 and the beginning of the lockdown measures ordered by the National Executive Power owing to the covid-19 pandemic (Decree No. 297/2020 and its successive extensions), because the Argentine Congress was closed for two months, with very little activity over the next four months. These measures have resulted in a legislative backlog.
At the same time, the number of cases filed with the courts was significantly restricted during the first months of the pandemic because the judiciary worked on an emergency-based scheme for over four months. Consequently, the closest legislative precedent related to the subject under study was a bill addressed at reforming the National Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to ESI as evidence in the judicial process filed in 2017 before the legislative authority.
It developed, inter alia, the possibility of intercepting computer systems or any electronic data storage medium to obtain evidence for the verification of certain crimes (such as kidnapping), the obtaining of copies or the preservation of electronic data and a particular regulation regarding the chain of custody of such evidence. In addition, special treatment was given to the intervention of telephone communications and any other means of communication of an accused party, including ESI.
In spite of the above, this project lost parliamentary status because it was not dealt with and approved on schedule,6 and there have been no subsequent similar projects. This shows that the Argentine legislative agenda is not focused on this matter.
However, the courts have dealt with this issue several times before the pandemic – and will increasingly do so as technology continues to evolve and innovate – generating, as a result, robust case law. Contributions from scholars have also been relevant; much has been discussed in the judicial and doctrinaire field regarding the possibility of lawyers having access to electronic means of information during investigations to use them as evidence.
In this regard, not all jurisdictions give the same treatment to ESI. Moreover, the differences in some of the rulings have been substantial.
By way of example, on 25 March 2019, the National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber, 1st Chamber,7 turned to the treatment of emails sent and received by a company employee, which had been used by the employer as evidence against the employee in a trial in which non-competition duty violations by the employee were under discussion. In this regard, the evidence obtained through the emails collected from the employee's mailbox was declared invalid.
The court stated that electronic mail has privacy protection characteristics that are more accentuated than traditional postal mail, since its operation requires a service provider, a username and an access code or password, which prevents the intrusion of third parties accessing the computer data of others without the authorisation of the owner of a mailbox. Consequently, an intrusion into electronic communications of any kind implies a breach of the private sphere, violating individual guarantees of a person (as contemplated by the Constitution), either as a derivation from the right to property or as an autonomous right to privacy.8
Following the same criterion, on 6 July 2018 the National Labour Appeals Chamber, 7th Chamber, held that the dismissal for loss of confidence based on the fact that an employee sent an email with sensitive information to the employer's competitor was unlawful because the employer did not prove to have notified the employee of the company's policy on the use of computer tools and corporate emails, had it required the prior express consent of the employee authorising the employer to monitor and control his communications, affecting his privacy.9
This coincides with what is said by doctrine in respect of the storage of information related to the private life of individuals entailing consequences of various kinds, although at a strictly evidential level, in some cases, it is likely to generate undue intrusion into the privacy of individuals. Any diligence of this nature, regardless of whether it is carried out before or during the dispute, must be channelled within a framework of legality that duly safeguards this constitutional right or others of equal value.10
It is here that the consent of the parties and the expectation of privacy that they may have acquire a fundamental and decisive role. Thus, the applicable standard for the admissibility of personal emails in the criminal and labour field in the city of Buenos Aires is high and demanding, giving special importance to constitutional guarantees, such as the protection of individual privacy.
However, this criterion is not shared by other jurisdictions. As an example, in a 2018 ruling, the 6th Labour Chamber of the province of Mendoza11 admitted in the judicial process the use of emails from an employee's mailbox as evidence. In this regard, the court made it clear that the fact that the employer had access to the work mailboxes of its employees and reviewed this information for strictly work purposes could not mean a loss of privacy for the workers, especially since, in this case, there had been prior knowledge of a certain conduct of the worker that was reprehensible. According to the courts, in cases such as the one under discussion, there is a justified need to verify the illegitimate actions of workers or their failure to comply with their duties by means of, for example, checking emails sent by employees from their own work mailboxes.12
The resolution issued by the National Labour Appeals Chamber, 9th Chamber in 2018 also serves as an example. In that case, an employee requested the production of an anticipated proof proving the existence of emails between him and his former employer. The court considered that the motion should be admitted because of the nature of the claim and the facts invoked, the nature of the rights at stake and the peculiar characteristics of the evidence to be safeguarded, as well as the guarantees of access to jurisdiction and effective judicial protection.13
This decision is useful for illustrating the great flexibility that is taking place with regard to the admissibility of ESI as a means of evidence in the labour courts, and especially if it is taken into account that the labour justice system in Argentina has a clear tendency to be, in general, pro-worker.
On the other hand, the covid-19 pandemic has meant that the use of emails, videoconference meetings and communications via WhatsApp and social media has increased considerably. Judges have recognised the positive scope of technological progress, which in many cases allows for the streamlining of judicial processes. In recent months, it was demonstrated that notification through WhatsApp expedites the processes of maintenance in which there had often been months of delay to notify the defendant of the claim initiated. The reliability of the notification and subsequent evidence thereof does not arise from the ritual norms nor from the old treatises of procedural law but from the technological advances that allow verifying whether a message has been read, always protecting the rights of both parties in the process.14
In 2020, the National Civil Appeals Chamber considered it viable to resort to the technological tools available – in this case, notification of interim measures via WhatsApp – to facilitate the parties' access to justice and, at the same time, to observe the directives outlined by the Supreme Court, in the sense that the service of justice should be performed primarily from places of isolation.15
The covid-19 pandemic, in certain jurisdictions and for certain cases, has resulted in magistrates setting precedents that tend to recognise electronic communication media as efficient mechanisms to expedite judicial proceedings.
Recently, considering that since the beginning of the covid-19 pandemic, the use of information and communication technologies has increased, the Supreme Court of the province of Buenos Aires created the 'Registry of Electronic Addresses of the Province of Buenos Aires's Judiciary'. The registered addresses would be used for notifications and communications through electronic means, as well as to prove them, including the notification of claims, the summons to pay, preliminary proceedings, anticipated precautionary measures and even the final judgment. This legislative novelty is evidence of the growing value granted by the judiciary to technology and its use in lawsuits.
Taking this into consideration, it is not be unreasonable to think that in the future there will be more jurisprudence that will admit ESI as evidence in judicial proceedings.
Control and preservation
There are no specific rules regarding control in the context of ESI; therefore, general procedural rules apply. These rules state that a court must order a party in possession of evidence to produce it within a specific time.16 If the party does not produce the evidence and does not provide a sound reason, and, based on other elements of judgement, the existence of the evidence and its content are manifestly credible, there will be a presumption of guilt.17 The concealment of evidence can be considered proof that the evidence exists. In certain cases, the non-disclosure can be justified, for example, because of attorney–client privilege.
In this sense, a ruling on 30 October 2020 judged an email as valid after one of the parties had not made its mailbox available to the computer expert for him to carry out the corresponding computer expertise to corroborate the authenticity of the email, despite having been notified to do so under a warning that a presumption against it would result from the lack of cooperation.18 Adverse inferences are the only sanctions that the law applies to parties that do not produce – or preserve – evidence under their control when required to do so.
Parties are not subject to a duty (failure of which would be penalised) or an obligation (compliance with which could be coercively demanded by the other party), but they are constrained by a procedural burden of good faith and collaboration in the production of evidence, which governs the entire litigation process and, specifically, the preservation and production of evidence that could be under the parties' control. If this procedural burden is breached, it could mean that the party is deemed to have evidence that is harmful to its case.19
These principles also apply to e-discovery. In an old precedent passed in 2010, the National Labour Appeals Chamber, 8th Chamber, confirmed that the refusal to produce electronic documents entails the presumption provided for by Section 388 of the National Procedural Code in the above-mentioned sense.20
Preservation of ESI is a complex subject. Although Argentine legislation does not have any specific rule determining the length of time that ESI must be kept, the Civil and Commercial Code (CCC)21 stipulates that, in general, documents should be preserved for 10 years; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that ESI should also be preserved for 10 years.
Preservation implies not destroying records and maintaining them so that they do not deteriorate owing to the passage of time or exposure to any harmful elements, allowing them to be consulted or made available if required. With regard to ESI, it is necessary to guarantee its authenticity, so that the origin of the information is certain.22
The authenticity and integrity of ESI depends on the security surrounding the process of preparation and issuance of the document or message. There is constant technological progress in this area.23 In this regard, security techniques such as cryptography and digital certifiers hold a preponderant role.
There is consensus in the Argentine legal community that using specialised third parties for preservation and obtaining ESI helps to reinforce the credibility of the process, taking into consideration that the failure to follow correct processes can have a significant impact on any subsequent legal proceedings. Improper collection of ESI could interfere with and ultimately compromise the integrity of the underlying data. In addition, a notarised record describing the process of data collection is usually implemented to reinforce the evidential value of the items that were preserved24.
The evidence preservation stage does not imply a violation of the right to privacy since there is no access to the protected contents, nor does the processing stage since it consists of a series of procedures on the evidence – deduplication, indexing and filtering, among other things – where there is no access to the contents by the operator. It is in the review stage that a human being is finally present who has to read the documents and evaluate whether they are relevant or not, according to what is being sought. It is in this instance that protected content may eventually be accessed.25
Although Argentine regulations, especially the CCC, are concerned with regulating the admissibility and evidential value of each type of evidence admitted by law, there has been much discussion regarding the validity of ESI as a means of evidence and the value that should be given to it. The main obstacle to the admissibility and evidential effectiveness of ESI arises in relation to whether it can have the character of 'permanence', which is essential under Argentine law in the definition of 'document'. The fear of the possibility of re-registration, reuse or disorder of ESI diminishes its security and reliability.26
In a case in 2017, the 3rd Civil, Commercial, Mining and Tax Chamber of the province of Mendoza27 ruled in favour of the admissibility of ESI when it admitted the validity of a chain of emails and various messages sent by the popular platform WhatsApp to prove the intervention of a real estate agent in a transaction regarding the sale of a property. This judicial decision implements a rule of utmost importance from an evidential aspect in the judicial field: the admissibility of exchanges of emails and WhatsApp messages as evidence of the existence of a contractual relationship.
Case law pointed out that, in the current state of the legislation, electronic documents constitute a means of evidence that has sufficient regulatory support, expressly emphasising that it is documentary evidence.28
In the particular case of emails, their validity can also be built from indications derived from other evidence. This can be witness, informative or expert evidence. The theory of own acts can also be invoked, and the procedural attitude of the parties can be evaluated.29
In a ruling of the National Commercial Appeals Chamber, D Chamber, an email lacking a digital signature was accepted to prove a contractual relationship because it was considered that its content was plausible in the light of sound criticism and the rest of the evidence produced in the judicial process. To this effect, the computer expert evidence was especially valued given the transcendental role played by computer experts in the evidential validity of ESI.30
In this regard, Article 318 of the CCC expressly provides for correspondence as a means of proof, understanding as such both epistolary correspondence and correspondence resulting from an exchange of emails or electronic messages through instant messaging applications. However, ESI lacking elements such as an electronic signature (regulated by Law No. 25,506) prevents this type of evidence from being granted the highest evidential value. This has been stated on various occasions on the understanding that while records of instant electronic messages, emails and other ESI are admissible in court for evidential purposes, these means of evidence constitute documents that, lacking a digital signature, cannot be equated with a private instrument in terms of their evidential value.31
Under a ruling of 14 February 2020, digital signatures and electronic signatures are notions that, legally, must be distinguished; only in the first case would the signature be subject to the rebuttable presumption of authorship and integrity, which in turn, and in accordance with Section 288 of the CCC, would enable the requirement of the signature to be considered satisfied and, therefore, to be before a private instrument.32
Article 287 of the CCC is concerned with distinguishing the different types of documents that can be brought into the process. This distinction helps to evaluate the probative value of different means of evidence. The rule distinguishes between public and private instruments.
- A public instrument is one authorised with the solemnities required by law by a competent public official, a condition that makes it the element of evidence with the greatest probative value.
- Private instruments are subdivided into two types, depending on the presence or absence of a signature:
- private instruments that have a signature (handwritten or digital); and
- particular unsigned instruments that do not have any kind of signature to prove the authorship of those instruments.
The latter category includes all documents that are written but not signed and records of speech and information produced in any medium.33
As developed by Article 287, the opinion under most case law is reflected in the regulations, as the evidential validity of ESI is considered to be comparable to that of letters missive and, more broadly, to that of any particular unsigned instrument. This implies that ESI (referring to information contained in electronic media in general, leaving out any electronic documentation that has a digital signature) is seen as an indication or principle of written evidence, with it being necessary to verify its authenticity through complementary means of evidence (such as computer or technological expert evidence).
In this regard, such documentary evidence must be complemented with computer expert evidence on the corresponding server, testimonies that can attest to those posts or evidence of reports given to the service provider so that he or she can send information to the judicial courts about a conversation held on electronic platforms.34 This was stated in the Skillmedia decision and confirmed by recent doctrine in which it was said that, following logical reasoning, the judge cannot analyse the authenticity of an email if it was not previously duly proven at trial; therefore, it is necessary to provide the judge with information regarding the storage and conservation mechanisms used so that it will almost always be necessary to resort to other complex or combined evidence (mainly, computerised expert evidence) to generate the judge's conviction regarding the authenticity of ESI that does not have a digital signature.35
To establish a standard of evidential value for ESI, courts analyse three main aspects: authenticity, integrity and legality. The first is defined as correspondence between the apparent author and the actual author of a document.36 Integrity refers to the verification of the existence or non-existence of modifications made after an instrument was issued. Legality is related to the way in which the evidence was obtained.37
In general, and in line with the provisions of Article 318 of the CCC, doctrine states that the evidential effectiveness of ESI with regard to, for example, unsigned emails, is rather poor mainly because authenticity, integrity and authorship cannot be guaranteed.38 Therefore, while the rule of admissibility of ESI as evidence is now widely accepted, it is not appropriate to give full effect to a digital document that has those shortcomings.
Requests and scope
Although the parties to a lawsuit are not obliged to meet in the context of disclosure of ESI that may be useful for a lawsuit (nor are there lists drawn up to obtain the information), there are certain rules that parties should abide by regarding requests for and the scope of the production of evidence. These rules also apply to ESI.
The first rule is the duty to offer evidence on time. In every lawsuit, the parties must file the documentary evidence on which their case is based. The law explicitly establishes that the documentation the parties possess must be submitted by them when filing a complaint or upon answering a complaint, as applicable. This duty forbids the parties from submitting documentation at other times, unless it refers to documentation that has come to their attention later in the process.
The second rule is the duty to present the documents that are essential for the resolution of a dispute. Article 387 of the CCC states: 'The parties and third parties who have essential documents for the resolution of the dispute shall be obliged to present them or to indicate the notarial record or file where the original documents are kept.'
The third rule relates to the burden of proof, construed as the legal principle that determines who is obliged to prove a certain fact before the court. The general principle is that the burden of proof is borne by the party affirming the existence of a controversial fact or of a legal provision that the court does not have a duty to know (excluding, therefore, the applicable law).39 Each party must prove the facts on which it is grounding its claim, defence or motion.
Because of this duty (as provided by civil procedure), the powers of the court to order evidence on its own initiative are exceptional and incidental. However, when establishing the applicable principles for civil liability, Article 1735 of the CCC provides that 'the judge may distribute the burden of proof or, having acted with due diligence, may consider which party is in a better position to provide it'. It also includes the principle of the dynamic burden of proof.
Review and production
Communications between a lawyer and his or her clients are protected by attorney–client privilege, which is found in different laws, procedural codes and the Constitution. Attorney–client privilege is very strict and provides lawyers with many tools to avoid being forced to produce evidence in their power delivered to them by their clients, subject to the fact that they were acting as their attorneys.
The work-product doctrine does not exist in Argentina; however, it seems that a lawyer's work product is protected by attorney–client privilege. If a lawyer is requested to produce his or her work product in a trial, the same protection granted for communications must apply as the work product originated from the information provided by the client.
The court determines the time frame within which parties must produce their evidence. According to the National Procedural Code, the time frame should not exceed 40 working days. In practice, however, it lasts much longer, as the courts extend it as long as is necessary to have all the proposed evidence duly produced.
Only evidence that is directly related and essential to a case can be offered in trial. If evidence is protected under contractual or legal confidentiality, or if the type of evidence brought is not admitted by the law or cannot be admitted for procedural reasons, then a party can challenge the production of it. Additionally, a party may argue that the evidence produced is against public policy or morals, and request that it be considered confidential and only made available to the involved parties.
There is also another discussion related to confidentiality when dealing with ESI. In this regard, Article 318 of the CCC stipulates that 'confidential correspondence cannot be used without the consent of the sender'.40
The Confidentiality Law41 states that individuals and legal entities may prevent information that is legitimately under their control from being disclosed to third parties, or acquired or used by third parties in a manner contrary to honest commercial practices, provided that the information is confidential in the sense that it is not generally known or easily accessible to persons in that field of work and has commercial value because it is confidential, and the person who controls it has taken reasonable measures to keep it confidential. ESI is specifically considered when the Law details how confidential information can be stored.
In this regard, some argue that the rule of confidentiality should not apply in this case since they consider that the facts that are proven during a trial may or may not be confidential, and that this is not a relevant aspect since it is understood that in a dispute between parties 'there are no secrets'.42 This relieves the party offering the means of proof from the burden of having the approval of the sender for incorporation as evidence in court.43
This position is supported by the Llopart decision when it states that because conversations and messages conducted by electronic means were sent between the conflicting parties, it cannot be sustained that they are of a confidential nature and, consequently, they can be used in court.44
However, the opposite position holds that Article 318 is clear when it states that the non-confidentiality of electronic correspondence is a strict rule that must be respected to be able to enter the evidence in court without the express consent of the other party. The proponents of this theory base their position on the fact that although the correspondence is the property of the addressee at the moment of receiving the email or message, the sender retains the intellectual property of the text, which is why his or her consent is necessary for it to be filed at court.45
This rule is supported by the principle of confidentiality of correspondence, in accordance with the requirements of Article 18 of the Constitution, which declares its inviolability. According to those who follow this position, the CCC should enshrine the right to privacy in its text to give meaning and proper protection to the constitutional guarantee of the inviolability of correspondence.
Handling of personal data always requires the consent of the data owner. One of the exceptions set forth in the Data Protection Law is when the personal data is collected for the exercise of functions proper to the powers of the state or by virtue of a legal obligation. When the handling of personal data is required under one of the three methods of obtaining pretrial evidence (see Section I), the court will exercise its judicial power to request it. The consent of the data owner is not required in those cases.
Although this information may, in principle, be contained in media of any kind, the enforcement authority of the Personal Data Protection Law48 has said that information contained in electronic media such as emails is not a subject covered by Law No. 25,326, since this is a matter that encompasses privacy and the inviolability of correspondence, both of which are constitutional guarantees. Therefore, the subject matter of information contained in emails or mailboxes is outside the scope of the Data Protection Law and should be discussed by other authorities and according to different rules.
In this regard, an opinion issued in 2010 by the National Directorate of Data Protection (DNPDP)49 established that, although prima facie email addresses constitute personal data, a difference must be established between emails as personal data and their content, which is not covered by this provision. Consequently, on the understanding that all electronic communications are regulated by the Criminal Code and the CCC, as they fall into the category of private correspondence, the intervention of the competence of the DNPDP is excluded, admitting that the Data Protection Law does not regulate the information contained, for example, in emails.
Although, in the discussion regarding the Llopart ruling, the issue of the confidentiality and privacy of the information contained in emails and other ESI is addressed, this matter is outside the scope of the DNPDP's treatment because, as these means are defined as epistolary correspondence, the discussion that surrounds them is of a constitutional nature (inviolability of correspondence) and not an issue of personal data protection.
Outlook and conclusions
Although it is not possible to identify any significant legislative or jurisprudential changes that have occurred in the past year, it is not be unreasonable to think that given the covid-19 pandemic, the need for a regulatory framework to regulate the matter has become more evident, especially considering that technology and communication between parties through it has become a new reality for everyone.
In recent years, the Argentine justice system has had to modernise as a result of the displacement that technology has implied for the remaining physical means of evidence (such as epistolary correspondence). It has been responsible not only for interpreting the rules within its reach in such a way that they are applicable to ESI, but also for creating and establishing standards and rules of jurisprudence for the purpose of carrying out judicial work in a comprehensive and responsible manner. In spite of this, the limited existing regulations have generated (and continue to generate, in some cases) uncertainty regarding the treatment that should be given to the validity and evidential effectiveness of ESI.
Although there have been modest attempts to regularise this situation, consolidating the regulation on ESI in a normative body, the legislative power has focused on the discussion and sanctioning of other regulations, leaving this issue unaddressed for the time being.
Despite the legal vacuum regarding specific regulations on ESI, it is likely that the justice system will continue to deal with this issue and formalise rules and jurisprudential standards as it has done to date, mainly in terms of understanding that technology is advancing in leaps and bounds, and more and more conflicts are arising between parties that feature electronic means that may be used as evidence.
1 Adrián Furman and Martín Torres Girotti are partners and Rocío Barrera is an associate at Bomchil.
2 Black's Law Dictionary (Seventh Edition), p. 478.
3 Article 326, National Procedural Code.
4 Article 195 et seq., National Procedural Code.
5 Definition provided by the US Government for the purpose of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
6 In Argentina, when a project begins to be treated by the legislature, the chambers have two years to treat, approve and promulgate the law. Otherwise, the project loses parliamentary status and is left without effect.
7 National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber, 1st Chamber – C, J A y otro s/ Nulidad.
9 National Labour Appeals Chamber, 7th Chamber – Alabart, Marisol Elena c. Synergia Personal Temporario SRL s/ despido.
10 Bielli, Gastón E., Ordoñez, Carlos J. and Quadri, Gabriel H, 'Zoom y prueba electrónica', (2020).
11 Sixth Labour Chamber of the province of Mendoza – Estornell, Juan Bautista c Andeluna Cellars SRL s/ despido.
13 National Labour Appeals Chamber, 9th Chamber – Álvarez Adrián Alejandro c/ Gestión Tallion Argentina S.A. s/ medida cautelar.
14 First Instance National Civil Court No. 92 – M.J c/ S.M s/ alimentos.
15 National Civil Appeals Chamber, M Chamber – C. L., D. v. S., V. J. s/ Medidas Precautorias.
16 Article 387 et seq., National Procedural Code.
17 Under Argentine procedural law, it is accepted that an individual who is in possession of a proof and refuses to provide it to the judges does so at his or her own risk. In other words, it is deemed that as a litigant, a party is not obliged to deliver such evidence, as it is not obliged to appear or not to appear to defend itself in the trial. But, if it does not do so, the law assumes that the party at stake is not in the right. In other words, if the assertions of the adversary are false, the other party could concur with his or her statement or with his or her documents to disprove them; if it does not do so, the least that can be assumed is that the truth or the documents do not favour the party (see Bielli, G. E. and Ordoñez, C. J., 'Excesos en la prueba electrónica: su producción al momento de sentenciar. Incorporación y valoración probatoria de videos subidos a la paltaforma Youtube', (2021)).
18 National Civil Appeals Chamber, Chamber A – Amato, José Reinaldo c/ Dreamakers Producciones S.R.L. s/ daños y perjuicios.
19 Kielmanovich, Jorge L., Código Procesal Civil y Comercial de la Nación: Comentado y Anotado.
20 National Labour Appeals Chamber, 8th Chamber – Infoconsulting Buenos Aires S.A. c/ Cisternas, Jaqueline Carla.
21 Article 328, Civil and Commercial Code.
22 Herrera, Marisa, Caramelo, Gustavo and Picasso, Sebastián, 'Comments on Article 328, Civil and Commercial Code'.
23 Molina Quiroga, Eduardo, 'Documentos digitales y comunicaciones electrónicas. Aspectos técnicos jurídicos' (2020).
24 Saccani, Raúl R. 'Investigaciones internas: una guía práctica' (2018).
25 See footnote 24.
26 See footnote 23.
27 Third Civil, Commercial, Mining and Tax Chamber of the province of Mendoza – Llopart, Ricardo José c/Lombardich, Luis y otro s/cobro de pesos, 1 June 2017.
28 Bielli G. E., 'Los mensajes de Whatsapp y su acreditación en el proceso civil' (2018).
29 Bielli, G. E. and Ordoñez, C. J., 'El juez y la prueba electrónica' (2019).
30 Arias, Carolina, 'El correo electrónico como medio de prueba. Análisis del caso “Skillmedia”', Estudios sobre jurisprudencia (2019).
31 National Commercial Chamber, Chamber D – Bunker Diseños SA c IBM Argentina S.A., 2 March 2010.
32 First Instance National Commercial Court No. 23 – Wenance S.A. c/ Gamboa, Sonia Alejandra s/ ejecutivo.
33 Lorenzetti, Ricardo (Director) – Código Civil y Comercial de la Nación, comment on Article 287.
34 Tomeo, Fernando, Redes Sociales y Tecnologías 2.0, Astrea, Buenos Aires, p. 25.
35 See footnote 23.
36 See footnote 28.
37 Article 387 et seq., National Procedural Code.
38 Molina Quiroga, Eduardo, 'Documentos y comunicaciones electrónicas: su eficacia probatoria a la luz del Código Civil y Comercial', SJA 31 (2017) 36, p. 3.
39 Article 377, National Procedural Code.
40 Article 318, National Civil and Commercial Code.
41 Law No. 24,766.
42 Bueres, Alberto J (Director), Código Civil y Comercial de la Nación, Ed Hammurabi, t I, p. 271.
43 See footnote 31.
44 See footnote 27.
45 Elías, Jorge A., 'Actuales modalidades de la correspondencia como medio de prueba y el Código Civil y Comercial de la Nación' (2019).
46 Law No. 25,326.
47 Article 2, Data Protection Law.
48 This authority is the National Directorate of Data Protection (DNPDP).
49 DNPDP, Opinion No. 025/10.