“The other side wiped the phone” is a forensic question before it is a legal one
A spoliation motion stands or falls on its technical predicate: what was deleted, when relative to the preservation duty, how— and whether it can be restored.
That predicate is examiner work.
We are retained to build it: forensic acquisition of the devices and accounts in question, artifact-level analysis of the deletion record, and a written report counsel can put in front of a court.
Wiping and anti-forensics artifacts, where present, are identifiable— and where the record is ambiguous, the report says so, because an overstated spoliation finding dies on cross-examination.
Engagements are confidential and structured to begin within 48 hours of the consultation — faster for emergency preservation.
Quinn (Founder and CEO) oversees every engagement and reviews every case before findings leave the practice.
- 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 — deliverables, timeline, and price — and 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 — a police report, an IC3 filing, a platform's own recovery flow — would resolve your situation, we point you there first.
What the exam looks for
Artifact classes, not conclusions.
Depending on the platform, the record can include:
- Deletion timing.File-system and application-database timestamps that place deletion events on a timeline — the timeline is what matters when the question is “before or after the duty attached?”
- Wiping-tool and anti-forensics traces.Artifacts left by secure-erase and cleaner utilities, where present — installation records, execution logs, characteristic overwrite patterns.
- Mass-deletion patterns. Bulk deletions clustered in time, message-thread gaps, factory-reset markers, app removals that coincide with case events.
- Retention-setting changes.Disappearing-message timers turned on, auto-delete settings shortened, cloud backups disabled — the quiet form of spoliation.
- What is still recoverable.Deleted-but-present data, cloud copies, sync residue on paired devices — recovery is opportunistic, and the report documents both what came back and what did not.
The exam runs on the same acquisition discipline as all our litigation-support forensics: write-blocked imaging, two-hash verification, chain of custody documented from intake — see how we run chain of custody.
Emergency preservation
When counsel suspects active destruction, the sequence is preserve first, analyze second.
An emergency preservation engagement forensically acquires what exists now— devices, accounts, cloud exports — and fixes the artifact record before further use degrades it.
The analysis phase can be scoped and authorized separately once the data is safe.
On the prevention side, we support the technical half of litigation holds; send custodians a hold template that actually covers a phone, and read spoliation in family-law digital evidence for how these disputes actually unfold.
Workspace platforms have their own failure modes: Slack, Teams, and ephemeral messaging in discovery.
FRCP 37(e), as general information
The federal frame for lost ESI: when electronically stored information that should have been preserved is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps, and it cannot be restored or replaced, the court may order measures no greater than necessary to cure prejudice — and on a finding of intent to deprive, it may instruct an adverse inference or enter dismissal or default.
Two honest boundaries follow.
The sanctions turn on findings the courtmakes — an adverse-inference instruction is not an automatic consequence of data loss.
And we do not characterize legal intent: the report gives counsel the deletion timeline and the artifact record; what that proves is argument, and argument belongs to your legal team.
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 — fixed fee where it applies, hourly with milestone caps for open-ended investigations.
- Investigation and findings. Court-ready standards. Written report you can act on.
Why this work matters
A spoliation record that survives scrutiny is built, not asserted — methodology first.
Quinn holds 9 active certifications across GIAC — methodology aligned to NIST SP 800-86 and SWGDE practice, trusted by the attorneys who refer to us.
