ClearOne Communications v. Biamp Systems
ClearOne Communications, Inc. v. Biamp Systems, 653 F.3d 1163 (2011). Decided in 10th Cir..
- COURT
- 10th Cir.
- DECIDED
- 2011
- CITATION
- 653 F.3d 1163
- OUTCOME
- Admitted
- STANDARD
- Other (Rule 901, 403, or state rule)
- CITED BY
- 136 later opinions (CourtListener)
Admission at trial of a computer-forensics examiner who created court-ordered mirror images and searched them was affirmed over an objection based on eve-of-trial disclosure and non-compliance with Rule 26(b). The ruling rests on disclosure and prejudice rather than on Daubert; the opinion contains no Rule 702 or Daubert analysis.
Every entry in this docket was written from the opinion itself, and this is the copy that was read. If the opinion does not support what is written here, the entry is wrong — tell us and it will be corrected or removed rather than softened.
READ THE OPINIONClearOne Communications v. Biamp Systems, 653 F.3d 1163↗COURTLISTENER · FREE LAW PROJECT · OPENS IN THE SAME TAB
The court’s reasoning
The examiner did not testify to a new or complicated scientific theory, but only to what was found on the mirror images — information the opposing party knew was being sought, under a search protocol the magistrate judge had approved. The court concluded the opponent was, or should have been, equipped to cross-examine him.
From the opinion
“Knudsen did not testify at trial regarding a new or complicated scientific theory in support of ClearOne's case.”
Grounds argued
This ruling turned on 2 of the eight arguments that recur across the docket. Each is defined the same way on every entry, so the same ground can be followed across rulings that reached opposite results.
- Fit to the issue
- Whether the opinion helps decide a fact actually in issue. Testimony can be entirely reliable and still be excluded because it answers a question the case does not ask.
- Scope creep
- Whether the examiner stayed inside the technical question and out of intent, credibility, and legal conclusions. It is the most avoidable ground on this list and one of the most common.
Practice note
Terms used on this page
Every term below is defined in the forensic glossary — what it is, why a case turns on it, and what happens in the matter when it is mishandled.
Rulings on the same grounds
One ruling is not a rule. These are the other entries in the docket argued on the same grounds, most-cited first — including the ones that came out the other way, which are the ones worth reading before relying on this entry for anything.
ON FIT TO THE ISSUE
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ADMITTED
- Wellogix v. Accenture 716 F.3d 867 (2013) ADMITTED
- United States v. Noel 581 F.3d 490 (2009) EXCLUDED
- United States v. Walker 908 F.3d 252 (2018) ADMITTED
ON SCOPE CREEP
- United States v. Noel 581 F.3d 490 (2009) EXCLUDED
- United States v. Hill 818 F.3d 289 (2016) ADMITTED
- Passlogix v. 2FA Technology 708 F. Supp. 2d 378 (2010) ADMITTED IN PART
- Furmanite America v. T.D. Williamson 506 F. Supp. 2d 1126 (2007) ADMITTED IN PART
If an opinion in your case has to survive the argument this ruling turned on — or you need one tested before it is served — Law & Forensics retains court-tested digital forensic expert witnesses and forensic neutrals.
A conflicts check and scoping call follow, normally within one business day. Please do not send privileged or case-sensitive material until conflicts have cleared.
- The Daubert Docket
All 55 rulings, filterable by ground, outcome and court, with the distribution across the three outcomes reported up front.
- Daubert and digital evidence
The argument this docket is the evidence for: why an opinion stated one level too strongly is an admissibility problem under Rule 702(d).
- Daubert Exposure Check
Twelve questions about an expert's methodology, mapped to the failure modes these rulings keep finding, with the remediation for each gap.
- Daubert or Frye?
Which reliability test your forum applies — settle that before relying on a ruling from another jurisdiction.
Attorney advertising / expert services. Each entry summarises a decision as it appeared in the opinion linked from that entry, on the day the entry was written. Decisions are reversed, vacated, superseded, and distinguished, and the text of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was itself amended effective 1 December 2023 — check the current status and subsequent history of any ruling before relying on it. Nothing here is legal advice, none of it is a prediction about how any court will rule, and it is not a substitute for the rules, standing orders and case law of your own forum.