Cellebrite & GrayKey Forensic Report Review for Attorneys Skip to main content
Extraction Report Review · For Attorneys

Cellebrite Report Review: What the Extraction Shows, and What It Does Not

Discovery arrived as a Cellebrite UFED export, a GrayKey output, or a Magnet AXIOM report. An independent Cellebrite report review tells you what the production shows, what it leaves out, and what to request next. 19 years in digital forensics, casework in federal and state courts.

The Other Side Produced a Cellebrite Reader Report. Now What?

The production runs hundreds or thousands of pages of machine-formatted tables, and somewhere in it sits the evidence the other side plans to build on. You need to know what it proves, what it suggests, and what it omits.

Most attorneys read a Cellebrite Reader report front to back and take it at face value. That is how extraction reports get misread. The report is not the phone. It is a rendering of selected data, shaped by the extraction method, the tool version, and the choices of the examiner who produced it.

The review examines the report itself: extraction type, source metadata, tagging decisions, timestamp handling, and gaps. Then it explains, in plain English, what the report supports and where it stops.

Common reasons attorneys call

A state extraction produced in criminal discovery. An opposing expert's mobile forensics report in a civil matter. A Reader file nobody in the office can confidently interpret.

  • Cellebrite UFED and Cellebrite Reader exports, including UFDR files
  • GrayKey full file system outputs
  • Magnet AXIOM reports and portable case files
  • Extraction logs and source metadata
  • Tagged item selections made by the producing examiner
  • Timestamp and time zone handling across artifacts
  • Acquisition and chain-of-custody documentation
  • Gaps: what the extraction could not reach
19+
Years in Digital Forensics
Fed + State
Courts Qualified
27
Years in Law Enforcement

A UFED or GrayKey Report Is a Snapshot, Not the Phone

The biggest mistake in mobile discovery is treating an extraction report as complete. Every one is shaped by decisions made before you ever saw it.

An extraction report reflects three things: what the tool could reach, what the tool could parse, and what the examiner chose to include. Change any one of those and the same phone produces a different report.

Extraction type sets the ceiling. A logical extraction pulls a limited set of live data. A full file system extraction reaches far more, including app databases and many deleted records. If the report does not state the extraction type, that is the first question to raise. The same logic applies to a GrayKey report review: the output reflects what the tool could reach on that device that day.

Examiner selections shape the rest. Reader files in particular often contain only the items the producing examiner tagged. What was not tagged is not in front of you, and nothing on the page announces the omission.

What that means for your case

Absence from the report is not absence from the device. A message that does not appear may never have existed, may have been deleted beyond recovery, may live in an app the parser does not support, or may simply not have been tagged for production. Each of those carries different legal weight, and the report alone rarely tells you which one you are looking at.

The review therefore reads the report's metadata as closely as its contents, and ends with a clear statement of scope: what the extraction covered, what it could not, and what a broader request would add.

What Attorneys Misread Most in Extraction Reports

The same handful of misreadings turns up case after case. Any one of them can change what the evidence means.

Extraction Type vs. Completeness

A logical extraction with no trace of a message is not proof the message never existed. The report speaks only for the data its extraction method could reach.

UTC vs. Local Timestamps

Tools store most timestamps in UTC, and reports mix UTC and local-time fields by artifact. Miss the offset and an event moves by hours, sometimes onto the wrong day.

Deleted vs. Live Records

Whether a recovered record is reliable depends on where it came from and how intact it was. Treating every recovered fragment as a complete message overstates the evidence.

Tagged-Selection Bias

A Reader file frequently shows only what the producing examiner tagged. If the other side made the selections, you are reading their highlights, not the record.

Artifacts the Extraction Could Not Reach

Encrypted containers, unsupported apps, and cloud-only data may be absent because the tool could not reach them, and the report will not always say so. Reading that absence as deletion, or as innocence, is a mistake either way.

Parser Gaps and Version Effects

Tools parse thousands of app formats, and coverage changes between versions. An app unsupported on extraction day produces silence, not a notice. The tool version tells you what that silence means.

What a Mobile Forensics Report Review Covers

The review starts with the report's paper trail: extraction type, tool and version, device identifiers, hash values where present, and acquisition notes. It then works through the produced artifacts, the tagging pattern, the timestamp handling, and any recovered records the other side relies on.

You get a plain-English memo, not a stack of jargon. It states what the report shows, what it does not show, where the producing party's characterization goes beyond the data, and exactly what to request next: a fuller export, the extraction log, the complete UFDR, or a new acquisition.

If the matter is headed to deposition, the memo includes the questions a UFED report expert would put to the producing examiner about method, selections, and the limits of the extraction. If the case later calls for testimony, that work continues through the expert witness service.

What you receive

  • A plain-English memo structured for case use
  • What the report shows and what it cannot show
  • Extraction-type and scope assessment
  • Timestamp and time zone verification notes
  • Review of the recovered records the other side cites
  • Items to request in follow-up discovery
  • Deposition questions for the producing examiner
  • A findings call with counsel

What a Cellebrite Report Review Costs

Two ways to engage, both quoted in writing before any work begins. The initial consultation is free.

Hourly
Consulting Review
from $425 / hour

  • Targeted questions on a report or a handful of artifacts
  • Help drafting discovery requests for extraction data
  • Ongoing consulting as the record develops
  • Scales with the size of the production

Billed hourly. The complete fee schedule, including testimony rates, is posted on the rates page.

If the produced report cannot answer your question, forensic acquisition is available at $1,500 per device through the mobile device forensics service.

Counsel on Either Side of an Extraction

Remote intake nationwide from Addison, Alabama. Most reviews work entirely from the produced files, so there is nothing to ship.

Criminal Defense Attorneys The state produced a UFED or GrayKey extraction. Learn what it establishes before you negotiate or try the case.
Civil Plaintiff Counsel An opposing report characterizes phone evidence in their favor. Test that characterization against the underlying data.
Civil Defense Counsel A demand package leans on message screenshots and report excerpts. Find out what the full extraction would and would not support.
Family Law Attorneys In a custody matter, one extraction report can be read three ways. Get the reading the data supports.

Frequently Asked Questions

What to do with a Reader file, what these reports can and cannot tell you, and what a review costs.

Preserve it exactly as produced, note how and when it was delivered, and do not rely on a skim. Reader files often contain only the items the producing examiner tagged, so the first task is establishing what the file covers and what was left out. A review answers that and lists what to request next.
Often, within limits. The report's metadata usually identifies the extraction type, the tool and version, and the device, and a logical extraction has a far lower ceiling than a full file system extraction. Where the record is ambiguous, the memo says so and names the documents, such as the extraction log, that would settle the question.
Usually time zone handling. Extraction tools store most timestamps in UTC, and reports mix UTC and local-time fields depending on the artifact. If the offset is missed, an event can shift by hours or land on the wrong day. Part of the review is verifying which convention each cited artifact uses and restating the key events in one consistent time frame.
Yes, depending on the extraction type and the app. Full file system and physical extractions frequently recover deleted records from app databases. The real question is reliability: where the record was recovered from, how complete it is, and whether the tool reconstructed it or found it intact.
Just the report to start. Most reviews work entirely from the produced files: the report, the Reader or portable case file, and any extraction logs. If the review shows the production is too narrow, the memo will say so, and forensic acquisition of the device is available as a separate engagement at $1,500 per device.
A full review of a produced report runs $2,750 flat under the Opposing Expert Report Review engagement. Narrower questions are handled as hourly consulting from $425/hr. The initial consultation is free, and you receive a written fee agreement before any work begins.

Send the Report. Get a Straight Answer.

Call or write for a free consultation. Describe the production, and you will get a plain assessment of whether a review would help, plus a written quote before anything is billed.

Free initial consultation · Written fee agreement before any work begins · Serving attorneys nationwide from Addison, Alabama

Cellebrite, GrayKey, and Magnet AXIOM are trademarks of their respective owners. The Waldrep Company is an independent consultancy and is not affiliated with or endorsed by these vendors. References are for identification only.

Have an Extraction Report Reviewed

Tell us what the matter involves and we will respond personally. Initial consultations are free, and nothing you send here is a retention.

Sending this does not create an attorney-client or expert relationship, and please do not send privileged material or case evidence through this form. Prefer the phone? Call (251) 216-1164.