Floorgraphics v. News America Marketing
Floorgraphics, Inc. v. News America Marketing In-Store Services, Inc., 546 F. Supp. 2d 155 (2008). Decided in D.N.J..
- COURT
- D.N.J.
- DECIDED
- 2008
- CITATION
- 546 F. Supp. 2d 155
- OUTCOME
- Admitted
- STANDARD
- Daubert / Rule 702
- CITED BY
- 19 later opinions (CourtListener)
The motion to exclude the plaintiff's computer expert — offered to determine from web-server logs whether the defendants gained unauthorised access to a password-protected site — was denied, notwithstanding that he had not created the evidence CD, had done nothing to confirm the underlying network data was unaltered and complete, and conceded the logs could have been altered before he received them. The same opinion excluded two non-technical experts under Rule 702.
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 OPINIONFloorgraphics v. News America Marketing, 546 F. Supp. 2d 155↗COURTLISTENER · FREE LAW PROJECT · OPENS IN THE SAME TAB
The court’s reasoning
The court relied on uncontradicted testimony from the plaintiff's head of information technology that the computer logs were unaltered and entirely reliable, and on the concession by the defendants' own computer expert that there was no evidence the server logs and files had been altered or manipulated. The verification and custody gaps were treated as matters for cross-examination rather than grounds for exclusion.
From the opinion
“Mr. Cats did nothing, however, to ensure or confirm that the data on the network was itself unaltered, and complete.”
Grounds argued
This ruling turned on 3 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.
- Chain of custody
- Whether the evidence the examiner analysed can be tied to the device it came from, unaltered. Gaps here are usually treated as going to weight rather than admissibility, which is a narrower protection than it sounds.
- Methodology
- Whether the steps the examiner took are a recognised way of answering the question asked, and whether they were followed as described. Most digital-forensics rulings turn on this rather than on anything the field would call science.
- Qualifications
- Whether this witness — by training, certification, or documented casework — is competent to give this opinion. Courts routinely admit examiners qualified by experience alone, and routinely narrow them when the opinion strays past the experience they described.
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 CHAIN OF CUSTODY
- Krause v. State 243 S.W.3d 95 (2007) ADMITTED
- Galaxy Computer Services v. Baker 325 B.R. 544 — CourtListener records the deciding court as the Bankruptcy Court for the E.D. Virginia; the opinion itself reads as an in limine ruling in a district-court action, and the record is thin on the point. (2005) ADMITTED
ON METHODOLOGY
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ADMITTED
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael 526 U.S. 137 (1999) EXCLUDED
- General Electric Co. v. Joiner 522 U.S. 136 (1997) EXCLUDED
- Wellogix v. Accenture 716 F.3d 867 (2013) ADMITTED
ON QUALIFICATIONS
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael 526 U.S. 137 (1999) EXCLUDED
- Wellogix v. Accenture 716 F.3d 867 (2013) ADMITTED
- Krause v. State 243 S.W.3d 95 (2007) ADMITTED
- United States v. Chiaradio 684 F.3d 265 (2012) ADMITTED
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.