The documents a matter actually runs on
Six working documents for counsel handling digital evidence: model language you can read clause by clause, a question outline you can take into a deposition room, a checklist against the words of the rule, and a blank form you can print. Free, ungated, and complete in HTML — because a template nobody can quote is a template nobody uses.
- RESOURCES
- 6 documents
- COST
- Free · no sign-up · no email
- FORMAT
- HTML · print · Save as PDF
- JAVASCRIPT
- Not required to read or print
- MODEL TEXT
- Generic · not court-approved
- ADVICE
- None of it is legal advice
These six documents cover the points in a matter where digital evidence is won or lost on paperwork rather than on analysis: the preservation letter that goes out first, the custody record that has to survive cross-examination, the protective-order terms that decide what a code reviewer may do, the disclosure the rule actually requires, and the two documents you read before retaining or deposing an expert. All of it is generic and educational, and none of it is legal advice.
- RESOURCE 01 / PRESERVATION
Evidence Preservation Letter
A generic preservation letter, clause by clause, with each clause paired against what it actually preserves and what it leaves exposed. The annotation is the product.
ANNOTATED MODEL LANGUAGE→ - RESOURCE 02 / DEPOSITION
Forensic Expert Deposition Outline
A topic-organised question outline for the deposition of an opposing digital forensics expert — qualifications, scope, tool validation, reproducibility, timestamps, custody, and what they were never asked to do.
QUESTION OUTLINE, BY TOPIC→ - RESOURCE 03 / DISCLOSURE
Rule 26 Report Checklist
The six statutory elements of a retained expert's report quoted verbatim, then — counted separately, because the rule imposes six and not sixteen — the practice points that decide whether the six are met.
CHECKLIST, RULE TEXT QUOTED→ - RESOURCE 04 / CUSTODY
Chain of Custody Form
A blank, printable custody form, plus a field guide explaining why each field exists and what a gap in it costs when the custody record is put to a witness.
PRINTABLE FORM + FIELD GUIDE→ - RESOURCE 05 / PROTECTIVE ORDER
Source Code Inspection Protocol
Model protective-order terms for source code review, each paired with the failure mode it prevents — including the two terms that are routinely omitted and routinely fought over later.
MODEL TERMS, TERM BY TERM→ - RESOURCE 06 / DILIGENCE
Expert CV Red Flags
How to read a digital forensic expert's CV and testimony list for what they do not say — roles in place of examinations, curated publication lists, and what a missing four-year list means.
READING GUIDE + RED-FLAG LIST→
Why none of this is behind an email wall
Because a gated template is a template nobody forwards. The value of a deposition outline is that a partner can send it to an associate, who can send it to co-counsel, without any of them filling in a form first. The value of a model clause is that it can be quoted — in a brief, in a negotiation over a protective order, in a note back to the other side — and a PDF sitting behind a download gate cannot be quoted by anyone, including the answer engines that are now a real part of how research starts.
So every document here is HTML first. It is readable with JavaScript disabled, it prints to a clean white sheet through your own browser, and the browser’s print dialogue is where Save as PDF lives if you want a file. Nothing you do on these pages is transmitted anywhere, because there is nothing to transmit.
The annotation is the product
Model language is not scarce. A preservation letter, a custody form and a set of source code protocol terms can all be found in twenty minutes, and most of what circulates is fine as drafting. What is genuinely hard to find is a straight account of what each clause accomplishes and what it leaves open — which sources a standard preservation paragraph reaches and which ones keep expiring on their own schedule regardless, what a gap in a custody entry actually costs when the record is put to a witness, which two terms in a code-inspection protocol are omitted most often and fought over later.
That is the half these pages are built around. Every clause is printed beside what it does and what it does not do, in the same block, so the two cannot be separated by a page break or by a copy–paste. Where a claim depends on a specific artifact, the artifact is named and linked to what it records and what it cannot establish.
Where to start
If something has just happened and nothing has been preserved, start with the annotated preservation letter, and run the preservation deadline calculator beside it — the letter tells a custodian what to hold, and the calculator tells you which retention windows are closing while the letter is being negotiated.
If a forensic report has landed on your desk, read it against the Rule 26(a)(2)(B) checklist first and the deposition outline second. The checklist tells you whether the disclosure is complete; the outline is what you do about the parts that are.
If you are choosing an expert, the CV and testimony history guide pairs with the vetting checklist and the hiring guide. If the dispute is about code, the inspection protocol terms are worth reading before the protective order is negotiated rather than after.
What these resources do not do
- None of this is legal advice, and none of it is drafted for your matter. Every page says so in its own right, at the top, before the content. The model language is generic; adapting it is work that requires knowing the case, the forum, and the governing order.
- No clause here has been approved by any court. Nothing on these pages is this firm’s filed language in any matter, and nothing is presented as having been accepted or rejected in any specific proceeding.
- They reflect the Federal Rules, not your forum. Disclosure obligations, preservation duties, custody practice and protective-order convention all vary by jurisdiction, by court, and by standing order — and state practice frequently differs from the federal rule in ways that matter to what you should be asking for.
- A completed form is not a defensible custody record, and a completed checklist is not a complete report. Both can be satisfied on paper by work that will not survive examination. The documents are a floor for diligence, not a scoring system.
- They are published in the form they would be applied to us. The deposition outline is the outline we expect to be taken through; the CV guide asks for the documents we expect to be asked for. That is deliberate, and it is the only claim about this firm that these pages make.
Attorney advertising / expert services. This page publishes an educational template and general information about forensic practice and the procedural rules that govern expert evidence. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney–client or expert-engagement relationship, 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.