U.S. Gypsum v. Lafarge North America
United States Gypsum Co. v. Lafarge North America Inc., 670 F. Supp. 2d 768 (2009). Decided in N.D. Ill..
- COURT
- N.D. Ill.
- DECIDED
- 2009
- CITATION
- 670 F. Supp. 2d 768
- OUTCOME
- Admitted in part
- STANDARD
- Daubert / Rule 702
- CITED BY
- 1 later opinions (CourtListener)
Cross-motions against both sides' computer-forensics experts were granted in part and denied in part. The plaintiff's expert could testify on his investigation and findings but not on the defendants' intent or mental state and not on spoliation or destruction of documents; the defendants' EnCase-certified expert could critique that methodology but could not speculate about use or dissemination, intent, or spoliation.
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 OPINIONU.S. Gypsum v. Lafarge North America, 670 F. Supp. 2d 768↗COURTLISTENER · FREE LAW PROJECT · OPENS IN THE SAME TAB
The court’s reasoning
Opinions on the defendants' mental states would not assist the jury, because a technical account of how information was damaged, lost, or destroyed cannot shed light on intent without straying into speculation. Spoliation had already been barred by a prior order, and the opposing expert's contrary spoliation opinions became irrelevant once the plaintiff's were excluded. The court also directed the plaintiff's expert to avoid the loaded term 'misappropriate'.
From the opinion
“Florez's technical account of how information was damaged, lost, or destroyed cannot shed light on the issue of intent without straying into improper speculation.”
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
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 FIT TO THE ISSUE
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ADMITTED
- Wellogix v. Accenture 716 F.3d 867 (2013) ADMITTED
- ClearOne Communications v. Biamp Systems 653 F.3d 1163 (2011) ADMITTED
- United States v. Noel 581 F.3d 490 (2009) EXCLUDED
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.