Digital forensic expert witness work, by case type
The rest of this site is organised the way an examiner thinks: by discipline. These six pages are organised the way a matter arrives — by what is actually in dispute. Each sets out the evidentiary centre of gravity for that kind of case, the artifacts that bear on it, what those artifacts will not settle, and where the Rule 702 pressure falls.
A digital forensic expert does the same work in every matter — sound acquisition, reproducible analysis, a report that traces each conclusion to a specific artifact. What changes with the case type is which records carry the question, how fast they age out, and which part of the opinion the other side will attack. These pages set out that difference, one matter type at a time.
Six matter types
Trade Secret Litigation
Removable-media history, cloud-sync client records, print and mail artifacts, and the timing of all of it against the resignation date — with a clear statement of the gap between access and exfiltration.
Employment & Departing Employees
Authentication and access logs across endpoint, domain and tenant, read for what they attribute to an account rather than to a person — the distinction most employment findings actually turn on.
Insurance Fraud Investigations
Provenance of photographs, documents and video submitted with a claim — EXIF and container structure, device and clock behaviour, and the difference between an edited file and a fabricated event.
Family Law & Divorce
Shared and jointly-titled devices, authorisation and consent questions that arrive before the forensics do, asset and document tracing, and the evidence a party collected themselves.
Patent & ITC Proceedings
Source code produced under a protective order and examined on a stand-alone review machine — version-control history, build artifacts, and what a repository can and cannot date.
Government & Internal Investigations
Preservation scope set before collection, privilege handled by protocol rather than by review fatigue, and findings written so the same record supports a report to a board or a regulator.
Why the site is indexed twice
A forensic practice is organised by discipline because that is what determines the method: a laptop, a domain controller, a cloud tenant and a source code repository are acquired and examined in different ways, and the six service lines describe those methods. Counsel does not arrive with a discipline. Counsel arrives with a departing sales director, a claim file that does not add up, a preservation letter that landed this morning, or a protective order that has just been entered.
These pages are the bridge. Each one names the question the matter type actually turns on, points at the records that bear on it, and then says plainly what those records will not settle — which is the half of the analysis that decides whether an opinion survives cross-examination. Every page routes onward into the discipline pages rather than restating them, so nothing here is a second copy of the method.
What is the same in every matter type
- Preservation comes first. The artifacts that answer the question are also the ones that age out fastest. Cloud audit records roll off on a tenant-configured schedule, endpoint execution artifacts are capped, and a machine that stays in service overwrites its own history. The preservation deadline calculator exists because that clock starts before anyone is retained.
- Account is not person, access is not exfiltration, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Those three distinctions do most of the work in every matter type on this page, and collapsing any of them is what opposing counsel is looking for. They are set out at length on the computer forensics page.
- The deliverable is a document someone else can re-run. A Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report, a declaration, or a rebuttal — with every assertion traced to a named artifact, and every step recorded so an opposing expert working from the same image reaches the same result or says precisely where they disagree.
- Rule 702 governs whichever matter type it is. As amended on December 1, 2023, the proponent must show it is more likely than not that the opinion reflects a reliable application of the method to the facts of the case. The Daubert Docket collects rulings on digital forensic testimony, and the guide to Daubert challenges sets out how those opinions are actually excluded.
Matter types covered elsewhere
This site is the testifying and consulting expert: retention, Rule 702, Rule 26 reports, rebuttal, and host, server and cloud artifact analysis. Several adjacent lanes are covered in depth on the firm’s other properties rather than repeated here, and a matter that turns on one of them is better served there.
- Where the evidence lives on a phone — extraction and analysis across iOS and Android, including messaging, location and app data, is covered on mobileforensicexpertwitness.com.
- Where the dispute is about the discovery process itself — ESI protocols, search-term negotiation and technology-assisted review are covered on ediscoveryexpertwitness.com.
- Where the court appoints a neutral — special-master and court-appointed technical neutral work is covered on technicalspecialmaster.com.
Related reading
- The six service lines
The same practice organised by discipline — computer, server, cloud, source code, deepfake, and testimony.
- The artifact index
Per-artifact pages: what each record actually writes, what it proves, what it cannot prove, and how it is attacked.
- Can this artifact prove that?
Match a proposition to the records that bear on it, and see where the inference runs out before you plead it.
- How to hire and vet a forensic expert
Testifying versus consulting versus court-appointed, what to demand before retention, conflicts, timing, and cost.
Send the matter type, the venue, the key dates, and where the devices or accounts physically are. A conflicts check and a scoping call follow — and if the question belongs in another lane, you will be told that rather than sold this one.
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.
Attorney advertising / expert services. This page describes forensic practice and the procedural rules that govern expert evidence in general terms. It is not legal advice, and it is not a substitute for checking the rules, standing orders, and case law of your own forum. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.