Mintel International Group v. Neergheen
Mintel International Group, Ltd. v. Neergheen, 636 F. Supp. 2d 677 (2009). Decided in N.D. Ill..
- COURT
- N.D. Ill.
- DECIDED
- 2009
- CITATION
- 636 F. Supp. 2d 677
- OUTCOME
- Admitted in part
- STANDARD
- Daubert / Rule 702
- CITED BY
- 2 later opinions (CourtListener)
In a departing-employee trade-secret bench trial the court declined to exclude either side's computer-forensics witness, but precluded both from offering legal conclusions — specifically whether conduct amounted to spoliation or misappropriation — while permitting experience-based testimony explaining the forensic record.
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 OPINIONMintel International Group v. Neergheen, 636 F. Supp. 2d 677↗COURTLISTENER · FREE LAW PROJECT · OPENS IN THE SAME TAB
The court’s reasoning
Qualifications were only part of the Rule 702 inquiry and were not seriously contested; Rule 702 contemplates the admission of testimony by experts whose knowledge is based on experience. Because the judge was both gatekeeper and factfinder, the court could admit provisionally and disregard the evidence later if reliability failed.
From the opinion
“the Rule 702 opinion witnesses may attempt to explain the forensic record — for example, what happened to documents that are or were stored on the computer and USB drives at issue in this case — but may not offer opinions on whether any conduct by Defendant in fact constituted spoliation or misappropriation”
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.
- 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.
Practice note
The records behind this ruling
The evidence this ruling turned on has a page in the forensic artifact index, which states what that record proves and — the half that decides Rule 702 motions — what it cannot. The court did not use these names; almost none of them do, which is part of why the reliability question reaches a judge at all.
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 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
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.