--- title: "Computer Forensics Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Forensic Tools" meta: "og:description": "The computer forensics expert was precluded from testifying because he provided no information on how forensic tools work" "og:title": "Computer Forensics Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Forensic Tools" author: "Shuva Guha Thakurta" description: "The computer forensics expert was precluded from testifying because he provided no information on how forensic tools work" --- # Computer Forensics Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Forensic Tools Posted on August 11, 2026 by Shuva Guha Thakurta Plaintiff Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC ("Alliance") brought suit against the Defendants—two former employees, Trudy Adams and John Williams, and their new employer Autarkic Holdings, Inc., doing business as "Laundrylux"—alleging the misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with business relationships, and breaches of contract and the duty of loyalty. Laundrylux filed a motion to strike Alliance's expert witness, [Sean Lanterman](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Sean-Lanterman/1574771). ![Computer Forensics Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Forensic Tools](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_11T195723_3131.webp) ## Computer Forensics Expert Witness [Sean Lanterman](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Sean-Lanterman/1574771) has over 15 years of experience in computer forensics, e-discovery, and cybersecurity. Lanterman has personally been involved in over 2,000 matters involving digital evidence, including those that have required him to identify information from various systems. [Want to know more about the challenges Sean Lanterman has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1574771&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** Laundrylux argued that Lanterman's declaration and opinions must be excluded because they consisted of conclusions only and thus his declaration failed to comply with [Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(i)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26) and failed to satisfy the reliability inquiry of [_Daubert_](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard)__necessary to satisfy [Rule 702](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702#:~:text=Rule%20702%20sets%20forth%20the,is%20a%20relatively%20narrow%20inquiry.). Here, Lanterman's declaration disclosed a basis for his findings, albeit in conclusory terms. He stated that he conducted his own "independent analysis" and peer review, which consisted of making forensic images of the laptops, "preserving their data and operating systems," conducting a "complete examination of the laptops," reviewing email container files, and observing the computer activities that formed his conclusions. He also compared "hash values" on files. The disclosure thus included some basis for the opinions, and Laundrylux had the opportunity to highlight the deficiencies in a deposition, so the Court will not strike Lanterman's testimony based on a Rule 26 deficiency. That said, the above-mentioned conclusory bases Lanterman offered to support his opinions are completely insufficient for purposes of Rule 702. Lanterman provided no explanation of his methodology or process beyond those general terms. Alliance argued that the CFS team used "forensically sound procedures" that are generally accepted under industry standards and consistent with recently issued guidance from the National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST"). But Alliance conceded that Lanterman did not purport to adhere to NIST methods. And a review of his declaration shows that he did not even reference the 85-page NIST report nor did he directly address any of the methods or concerns it outlines. The NIST states that there is no single technique but "hundreds if not thousands of individual techniques that might be employed in a digital forensic examination." Lanterman's failure to describe his own knowledge of how a tool functions, why he used a particular tool, its limitations, or even what methods or tools he used in anything more than general terms leaves the Court unable to compare his process with techniques that Alliance argues have been extensively studied and documented in peer-reviewed literature or to evaluate whether any principles or techniques he used were properly applied in this case. Assuming this lack of explanation could be cured by having the expert flesh out his methodology through a subsequent deposition, that was not done here. In his deposition, Lanterman recalled four commercially available forensic tools that he used for this analysis and stated the names of the companies that produced them. Beyond that, however, he provided no information about how these forensic tools work, whether they are standard in the industry, or how the Court could gauge whether he had reliably applied them in this instance. Thus, his deposition testimony is simply too little too late. ## **Held** The Court granted Laundrylux's motion to strike the declaration of Alliance's expert witness, Sean Lanterman, and exclude his testimony from trial. ## **Key Takeaway** Even an expert relying solely on his professional experience and observations must explain how that experience leads to the conclusion reached, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts. Because Lanterman did not provide any such explanation, the Court and jury would be required to merely accept his word for it based on his qualifications—in other words, his conclusions are connected to the activity on the laptops and USB drive "only by the _ipse dixit_ of the expert." ## **Case Details:** | Case Caption: | Alliance Laundry Systems LLC V. Adams | | --- | --- | | Docket Number: | 3:23cv22130 | | Court Name: | United States District Court, Florida Northern | | Order Date: | August 09, 2026 | --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Computer Forensics Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Forensic Tools](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_11T195723_3131.webp) [**Computer Forensics Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Forensic Tools**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/computer-forensics-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-forensic-tools/computer-forensics-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-forensic-tools)![Vocational Rehabilitation Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Surgery Costs](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_11T181928_815.webp) [**Vocational Rehabilitation Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Surgery Costs**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/computer-forensics-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-forensic-tools/vocational-rehabilitation-expert-was-allowed-to-opine-on-surgery-costs)![Fire and Explosion Expert's Responsibility Opinion Excluded](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_10T201143_155.webp) [**Fire and Explosion Expert's Responsibility Opinion Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/computer-forensics-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-forensic-tools/fire-and-explosion-experts-responsibility-opinion-excluded)![Transportation Safety Expert Allowed to Opine on Alleged Violations ](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_10T164632_5791.webp) [**Transportation Safety Expert Allowed to Opine on Alleged Violations **](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/computer-forensics-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-forensic-tools/transportation-safety-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-alleged-violations-)![Accounting Expert Allowed to Opine on Monetary Damages](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_08_07T173048_9091.webp) [**Accounting Expert Allowed to Opine on Monetary Damages**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/computer-forensics-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-forensic-tools/accounting-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-monetary-damages)