When the case turns on an expert opinion, yours or theirs
Attorneys retain Quinn to defend a forensic opinion against a Daubert challenge, or to find the flaws in the other side’s.
The proof is the record: a Rule 26 expert report written to FRE 702 and the Daubert reliability factors, prior deposition and trial testimony, a CV and prior-testimony list on request, and methodology documented in enough detail that opposing counsel can replicate it.
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 and survive the challenge, 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 same examiner who runs the analysis can testify to it.
Engagements are confidential and structured to begin within 48 hours of the consultation.
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 (Founder and CEO) oversees every engagement and reviews every case before findings leave the practice; the practitioner team executes the technical work under her methodology.
- 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 to court-admissible standards, 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
Roughly half of expert-witness inquiries are not “prove our theory” but “tell us if theirs holds up.”
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 provided at engagement
No fabricated venue matrix, no testimony scoreboard. The disclosure documents carry the history, as the rule intends.
For enterprise-scale cybersecurity engagements such as breach response with regulator deadlines, standing retainers, and multi-team coordination, the same legal entity operates Varcoe, our enterprise brand, with enterprise scoping, SLAs, and team structure.
Litigation-support and expert-witness work for counsel stays here at SleuthX, at the flat rate above.
How an engagement begins
- Confidential consultation. NDA-protected. 30-60 minutes. 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.
- Investigation and findings. Court-ready standards. Written report you can act on.
Why this work matters
An expert opinion is only as strong as the certifications, the prior testimony, and the methodology behind it, and that record has to survive scrutiny.
Quinn holds 9 active certifications across GIAC, a methodology trusted by Fortune 50 enterprises, defense contractors, and the attorneys who refer to us.
