Richmond
Richmond Digital Forensics : LCG Discovery Experts
Address:
306 Morton St. Richmond, TX 77469What Our Clients Say
Latest Blog in The eDiscovery Zone
When IT Tools Meet the Courthouse: The Hidden Dangers of DIY Digital Evidence Preservation (Part 5 of 5)
In the first four installments of “When IT Tools Meet the Courthouse: The Hidden Dangers of DIY Digital Evidence Preservation,” we uncovered a sobering truth: when IT teams or other non-forensically trained/experienced personnel collect evidence using consumer-grade tools and ad-hoc processes, the courtroom becomes a minefield. Bad hashes (or no hash value validation at all), overwritten logs, incomplete exports, and overconfident administrators routinely hand opposing counsel the ammunition to call collections and data into question, at best, and are likely facing spoliation motions and Daubert challenges.
In this final article, we pivot from autopsy to action. What does a solidly defensive, litigation-ready preservation program look like in 2025? How do corporate legal, cybersecurity, and operations leaders transform “good-enough” backups into forensically defensible evidence flows, without blowing up budgets or business agility? The roadmap that follows weaves together international standards, such as ISO/IEC 27037, the Sedona Principles, emerging Rule 37(e) case law, and real-world cost data to provide a pragmatic blueprint for transitioning from risk to resilience.
When IT Tools Meet the Courthouse: The Hidden Dangers of DIY Digital Evidence Preservation (Part 4 of 5)
Welcome back to our multi-part series, “When IT Tools Meet the Courthouse: The Hidden Dangers of DIY Digital Evidence Preservation.” This installment—Part 4—picks up the outline’s cautionary theme and amplifies it. Until now, we have focused on why self-collections pose business, legal, and ethical risks. Today, we expose the legal tripwires that determine whether electronically stored information (ESI) ever comes under the scrutiny of a courtroom projector. In today’s legal landscape, courts require proof: hash values, validated workflows, and human testimony, demonstrating that your data journey from computer, cell phone, or other data repository to the exhibit is trustworthy at every step.
When IT Tools Meet the Courthouse: The Hidden Dangers of DIY Digital Evidence Preservation (Part 3 of 5)
Why “good with computers” isn’t good enough anymore (and never really has been!)
In discovery conferences, executives still hear a familiar refrain: “Our sys-admin can just image the laptop.”. That comfort sentence quietly ignores two hard facts:
Forensic science is an evidence discipline, not an IT chore. Under the amended Federal Rule 702, the party proffering digital evidence must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that its expert applied reliable methods to sufficient facts.
Courts will punish amateur mistakes. When a self-taught technologist handled collections in DR Distributors v. 21 Century Smoking, the judge ultimately awarded the plaintiffs US $2.5 million in fees, after a 104-page sanctions order catalogued every misstep.
The lesson is simple: talent without verifiable expertise can be more expensive than a robust credentialing program.
