When the case turns on an expert opinion, yours or theirs
Counsel can retain Quinn to defend a forensic opinion against a Daubert challenge, or to review the other side’s.
Counsel can check the work itself. Quinn’s CV is available on request, and the report sets out the method in enough detail that an opposing expert can repeat it.
In federal court, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence requires the party offering an expert to show, more likely than not, that the expert is qualified, that the opinion will help the court or jury, and that it rests on sufficient facts or data and reliably applies reliable methods. The court decides. Our report sets out the facts and data, the method, the tools and their versions, and how the method was applied, which is the record counsel uses to make that showing.
FRCP 26(a)(2)(B) requires a testifying expert's written report to state the opinions and their basis, the facts or data considered, the exhibits, the expert's qualifications and publications from the previous 10 years, the cases with trial or deposition testimony in the previous 4 years, and the compensation. Quinn has not yet testified at trial or by deposition, so that list is empty today.
Daubert is a ruling a judge makes case by case, not a credential anyone holds. So we build opinions designed to meet its reliability factors, never to claim a label.
Quinn takes cybersecurity and digital-forensics expert engagements in federal and state matters, covering testifying, consulting (FRCP 26(b)(4)(D)), and rebuttal work.
Expert-witness work pairs with our digital forensics for attorneys, e-discovery and ESI collection, and insider-threat and fraud investigations. The examiner who runs the analysis signs the report.
Some service tracks are offered at a fixed fee; complex investigations are billed hourly with a clear scope, milestone updates, and a cap agreed up front.
Quinn examines the evidence and signs the report.
- A direct line to Quinn, the founder, not a sales pipeline.
- Worked in-house by the examiner who scoped it.
- Explainable findings you can verify, with the methodology shown.
What this means for you
- Written scope before any work. You see a written scope covering deliverables, timeline, and price, and you approve it before we begin. You are never billed for work you did not authorize.
- We commit to findings, not outcomes. We tell you up front what the evidence can and cannot establish. Recovery, attribution, and prosecution are decided by banks, platforms, insurers, and courts. We produce the record they act on, and we put that distinction in writing.
- Every case is investigated, not just scanned. A credentialed examiner reviews every case before findings leave the practice. You get a documented investigation with the hashes, method and tool versions recorded, not a single automated scan and a one-line answer.
- We will tell you if you do not need us. If a free or simpler step would resolve your situation, whether a police report, an IC3 filing, or a platform's own recovery flow, we point you there first.
The December 2023 amendment to Rule 702 changed how experts get vetted
Effective December 1, 2023, FRE 702 now states that the proponent must show it is more likely than not that each admissibility requirement is met, and subsection (d) was reworded to require that the expert’s opinion reflect a reliable application of the method to the facts of the case.
The committee note calls out this discipline by name: forensic experts should avoid assertions of absolute or one hundred percent certainty.
Two practical consequences for counsel. Retaining an expert: an opinion stated without method-bounded confidence is now a liability you inherit. Our reports state what the artifacts support and where the inference begins, because that is what survives the (d) analysis.
Challenging one: the opposing report that claims certainty, skips error discussion, or waves at a tool’s output without showing the application to the facts is exactly what the amended rule tells the court to weigh.
Our guide to vetting a forensic expert under the amended 702 walks the checklist.
Daubert, Frye, and the venue question
The admissibility standard depends on where you are, and the first vetting question is whether your expert’s report is built for your venue’s standard.
As of July 2026: most states follow Daubert or a Daubert-like standard, and a handful still apply Frye or a Frye variant. This is general information, so verify current authority in your jurisdiction before relying on it.
- California applies the Kelly general-acceptance rule (California’s Frye line).
- New York applies Frye general acceptance.
- Illinois applies Frye general acceptance.
- Pennsylvania applies Frye-plus (general acceptance with Pennsylvania’s additional gloss).
- Washington applies Frye general acceptance.
- Minnesota applies the Frye-Mack two-prong standard.
Recent movers went the other way: Florida adopted Daubert in 2019 and Maryland in 2020.
The practical point is not the label but the report: a general-acceptance venue examines whether the methodology is accepted in the field; a Daubert venue examines the reliability factors directly.
Reports here document the field-standard grounding (NIST SP 800-86, SWGDE practice) alongside the case-specific application, so the same work product answers either examination.
Rebuttal work: reviewing the opposing expert’s report
A rebuttal engagement asks whether the opposing expert’s work is sound.
A rebuttal engagement reviews the opposing report the way the court will:
- Was the acquisition forensically sound, or does the chain of custody have gaps?
- Is the tool output validated, or repeated verbatim as if the tool were the expert?
- Do the conclusions follow from the artifacts cited, or is there a gap between the data and the opinion?
- Is the certainty language compatible with the 2023 committee note, or is it impeachment material?
The deliverable is a written methodology review counsel can use in deposition, a Daubert motion, or settlement leverage. Where the opposing work is sound, we say so, because that is worth knowing before you build a strategy on attacking it.
The working checklist is public: challenging the opposing forensic report.
What backs the opinion
The credential stack is published and verifiable:
- 9 active certifications across GIAC (the full registry is on the about page, each verifiable with the issuing body)
- methodology aligned to NIST SP 800-86 and SWGDE practice
- extraction platforms such as Cellebrite and Magnet AXIOM, engaged through our partner network when the matter requires them
- and a prepared-to-testify posture on every report the practice issues, with the Rule 26(a)(2)(B) disclosures prepared with the written report
The Rule 26(a)(2)(B) disclosures are prepared with the written report.
Litigation-support and expert-witness work for counsel stays here at SleuthX. The testimony retainer is its own, separate from the engagement retainer, and its terms are set out in the engagement letter.
How an engagement begins
- Free 30-minute consultation. NDA-protected. Direct conversation, no sales process.
- Scoped engagement. Written proposal with defined deliverables and pricing, a fixed fee where it applies and hourly with milestone caps for open-ended investigations.
- Examination and report. A written report with the hash values, the method, the tools and their versions, and the exhibits.
We examine only a device you own. Before we start, you sign a form stating that you own it. Other legal authority, such as a court order, is covered in our terms.
Why this work matters
An expert opinion is weighed on the examiner’s qualifications and on the method behind it.
Quinn holds 9 active certifications across GIAC, a methodology trusted by Fortune 50 enterprises, defense contractors, and the attorneys who refer to us.
