A forensic expert report gets read three ways: by the judge as gatekeeper, by opposing counsel hunting for a Daubert angle, and out loud to the jury. We write Rule 26 reports, declarations, affidavits, and rebuttal reports for attorneys who expect all three.
A forensic expert report is often the only part of a forensic examination the court ever sees. The analysis can be sound, but if the written report overreaches, skips its methodology, or buries its limitations, opposing counsel will find the gap and build a motion on it.
The Waldrep Company prepares Rule 26 expert reports, expert declarations, affidavits, and rebuttal reports for attorneys nationwide. Eric L. Waldrep, a Magnet Certified Forensics Examiner (MCFE) with 19 years of digital forensics experience and 27 years in law enforcement, has written findings in casework in federal and state courts.
Reports name the tools behind the findings (Cellebrite UFED, GrayKey, Magnet AXIOM), document how each was used, and tie every conclusion to specific artifacts: hash values, file paths, timestamps, records you can cite by exhibit number. What the evidence does not show is stated just as plainly as what it does.
Formal Rule 26 expert reports, shorter summary declarations, affidavits for motions practice, supplemental and rebuttal reports, and demonstrative exhibit packages for mediation or trial.
Every document is written on the assumption that a capable opposing expert will read it line by line.
Full written disclosures meeting federal expert report requirements: opinions, bases, data, exhibits, qualifications, and prior testimony list.
All opinions rest on peer-accepted methodologies with full citation to industry standards, research, and tool validation studies.
Critical analysis of opposing expert work. We identify methodological flaws, unsupported conclusions, and omissions with precision.
Annotated screenshots, timeline graphics, and device diagrams that make technical evidence comprehensible to a lay audience.
Rush report preparation available when deadlines are tight. We communicate progress and flag any issues early.
Reports delivered in Word, PDF, or native formats. Supporting data productions available for exhibit disclosure.
Different stages of a case call for different documents. These are the three attorneys ask for most.
The complete written disclosure federal practice requires: every opinion and its basis, the facts and data considered, exhibits, qualifications, prior testimony, and compensation. State court matters get the same discipline. Written to be served on deadline and defended at deposition.
Sworn statements scoped to a single question: authenticating records, supporting a motion to compel, addressing spoliation, protective orders. An expert declaration is shorter than a full report, held to the same standard, and often needed fast.
A written response to the opposing expert. Rebuttal work begins with a flat-fee review of the opposing report, so you know whether that report has real problems before you pay for a full rebuttal.
Ask what goes into the report before you ask how fast it can arrive. A report earns its credibility in four places, and weakness in any one gives opposing counsel a foothold.
The examination is described step by step, in enough detail that another qualified examiner could follow the same process and check the result. Reliability of method is the question a Daubert motion asks, so the report answers it on the page.
Cellebrite UFED, GrayKey, Magnet AXIOM: whichever tools produced the findings are identified, along with versions and how each was applied. Vague references to unnamed software read poorly under scrutiny.
Every opinion traces to something concrete: a hash value, a file path, a timestamp, a database record. If a statement cannot be walked back to a specific artifact, it does not go in the report as a finding.
Every method has boundaries and every dataset has gaps. A report that says so reads as credible; one that claims certainty about everything reads as advocacy, and judges know the difference. The limitations section is not a concession. It is often the reason the rest of the report gets believed.
Under Rule 702 and Daubert, the court wants to know whether the methods are reliable and whether they were reliably applied. That reader needs the methodology, the tool documentation, and the reasoning that connects data to opinion, laid out without hand-waving.
Jurors rarely read the report, but they hear it. On direct and on cross, sentences get read back word for word. A sentence that needed a translator when it was written becomes a liability in front of twelve people, so we do not write them.
So we write in layers: plain-English findings up front, technical depth in the body and appendices, terminology defined at first use. And because a report is only as strong as the person defending it, the examiner behind it is available for deposition and trial through our expert witness service.
Before anyone writes a rebuttal, someone has to read the other side's report the way a skeptical examiner reads it. That review is a fixed-scope, fixed-fee engagement.
The Opposing Expert Report Review is a structured pass through the opposing report: the methodology it claims, the tools it relied on, whether the cited artifacts actually support the conclusions, and where the reasoning stretches past the data. The written assessment feeds strategy, deposition prep, and motion practice.
Three outcomes are possible. The report has real problems, and the review becomes the working outline for a rebuttal report and your cross-examination. The report overreaches in specific places worth targeting. Or the report is solid, and knowing that early saves you the cost of a rebuttal that goes nowhere. You hear which one you have, without spin.
If the opposing findings rest on a Cellebrite extraction, a focused Cellebrite report review examines what the extraction actually contains, and what it does not.
Fixed fee, fixed scope, no hourly meter. If the review supports a rebuttal report, that drafting is billed separately from $425/hr.
A written fee agreement comes before any work begins. The initial consultation is free.
Report preparation, declarations, affidavits, analysis, and case consulting are billed from $425/hr, scoped to the document your matter actually needs.
When devices must be collected first, forensic acquisition is $1,500 per device, with chain of custody documented from intake.
A fixed-scope review of the other side's report for $2,750 flat. The usual starting point for rebuttal work.
Testimony rates, retainer tiers, and the full schedule are on the rates page. Questions about scope or timing? Start with a free consultation.
A structured review for opposing experts' reports: methodology, Daubert vulnerabilities, and unsupported conclusions.
Daubert, turnaround, rebuttal reports, affidavits, and exhibits.
We offer a free, confidential consultation for attorneys. Call or email to get started today.
Tell us what the matter involves and we will respond personally. Initial consultations are free, and nothing you send here is a retention.