Furmanite America v. T.D. Williamson
Furmanite America, Inc. v. T.D. Williamson, Inc., 506 F. Supp. 2d 1126 (2007). Decided in M.D. Fla..
- COURT
- M.D. Fla.
- DECIDED
- 2007
- CITATION
- 506 F. Supp. 2d 1126
- OUTCOME
- Admitted in part
- STANDARD
- Daubert / Rule 702
- CITED BY
- 55 later opinions (CourtListener)
The motion to strike the plaintiff's computer-forensics specialist was denied without prejudice. He was permitted to testify as a fact witness about the data he obtained from the hard drives and the procedures used to extract it, but barred from offering expert opinion because he had never been disclosed as an expert and had filed no Rule 26 report.
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 OPINIONFurmanite America v. T.D. Williamson, 506 F. Supp. 2d 1126↗COURTLISTENER · FREE LAW PROJECT · OPENS IN THE SAME TAB
The court’s reasoning
The witness had personal knowledge derived from his own work on the computers rather than from counsel, so fact testimony was proper. Because no expert disclosure or report had been made, he could not opine on highly technical questions such as whether and when a defendant performed a selective restoration to overwrite data.
From the opinion
“Mr. Lakes is permitted to testify regarding the data obtained from such computers, the dates of the elimination of material from such computers, if based on fact and not opinion, and the procedures used to extract such information. Expert opinion testimony by this witness, however, will not be permitted.”
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.
- 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.
- 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 SCOPE CREEP
- ClearOne Communications v. Biamp Systems 653 F.3d 1163 (2011) ADMITTED
- 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
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.