San Antonio
San Antonio 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 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.
When IT Tools Meet the Courthouse: The Hidden Dangers of DIY Digital Evidence Preservation (Part 2 of 5)
Cloud dashboards, admin consoles, and third-party data duplication/backup tools have made copying data as easy as clicking “Export.” That same frictionless experience tempts corporate IT staff and others subject to discovery requirements to treat preservation as just another backup job. However, the courtroom is not impressed, nor does the concept of convenience sway it. Judges evaluate digital evidence under the same scientific rigor that governs DNA or ballistics, as dictated by the Daubert reliability test. When a collection utility has never been validated, does not rely upon cryptographic hashes, and keeps no immutable log, its output can be questioned in discovery, handing the opposition a golden opportunity to exclude, impeach, or raise settlement leverage.
This article, the second in our five-part series on the dangers of DIY digital evidence preservation, explains why unvalidated tools shift the admissibility battlefield before a single motion is filed. (Legal Information Institute)
When IT Tools Meet the Courthouse: The Hidden Dangers of DIY Digital Evidence Preservation (Part 1 of 5)
In today’s workplace, the center of gravity for digital evidence has shifted. As cloud collaboration, hybrid work, and mobile productivity become permanent features of business life, corporate IT teams have emerged as de facto custodians of data that may later become evidence. This isn’t inherently problematic—after all, IT teams control the systems that generate, store, and secure that data. However, trouble begins when the electronic discovery, or worse, forensic responsibilities that traditionally fell to certified digital examiners and eDiscovery experts are absorbed into everyday administrative workflows.
In today’s corporate marketplace, the trend is to do more with less, and litigation preparedness and response is no different. When litigation strikes, companies lean on their internal IT professionals, as they do for nearly anything that is technology-related but may have little to do with their primary responsibilities. At the request of their superiors, IT personnel use familiar tools to gather what they believe to be relevant information. Microsoft 365 admins may run a Content Search, download .pst files, and email the results to Legal. A systems engineer might clone a server VM from a nightly backup. A mobile device manager may pull selected files from an employee’s iPhone. From an operational perspective, these actions are logical and efficient. From a legal standpoint, however, they can be catastrophic.
