Bring the question. We will tell you what the evidence can carry.

What happened on this device, when, and by whom? Was data deleted, moved, or altered? Does the artifact record support the account being given?

Forensically sound methods that are repeatable and defensible. Preserve first, analyze second, document throughout. Findings are stated in terms of what the artifacts support, and where the record is silent.

Defensible collections, artifact-level analysis, reconstructed timelines, and an expert prepared to explain all of it under examination.

Does the claimed pattern hold at population scale? What do the transactional records actually establish about conduct, hours, pricing, or class composition?

Identification, acquisition, analysis, and production of enterprise systems including SQL Server, Oracle, and DB2. We read the system before we read the data, then use visualizations and statistical models to make the volume comprehensible.

Population-level analysis rather than sample anecdote, visual exhibits a jury can follow, and testimony on method as well as result.

Do we need to process all of this, and can we defend the choice not to? How do we keep the complete source without paying to review what does not matter?

Expert judgment before processing. Our forensic experts preserve the full source defensibly, identify what is potentially relevant, and export only that into processing and review, on Relativity, RelAIR, or Nuix Discover. Everything else stays preserved under chain of custody, so we can return to the original image if the matter changes, and questions about deleted data go to forensic examination rather than review.

A reviewable record, documented decisions on scope and method, a processing scope that can be explained to opposing counsel and justified against your budget, and a witness who can explain why the search was reasonable.

What is the economic effect? What would have happened absent the conduct? How sensitive is the number to each assumption behind it?

Build the counterfactual explicitly. Where the damages rest on transactional data, the same firm that analyzed the data supports the model, so the two do not contradict each other on cross.

Damages and valuation analysis, sensitivity testing, rebuttal of opposing financial opinions, and testimony.

What happened, who was involved, and how much of it can be established rather than inferred?

Our Special Investigations Unit responds to criminal acts, government investigations, employee misconduct, and urgent internal matters. Investigative instinct paired with the evidentiary discipline that keeps findings usable later.

Findings, a documented investigative record, and privilege-aware reporting built to survive later scrutiny.

How did they get in, what did they reach, what can we demonstrate about it, and what is our notification exposure?

Expert-driven risk mitigation and incident response, tailored rather than templated. Because the same people testify, the response is documented as though it will be examined, because it often is.

Incident findings, security posture assessment, remediation priorities, and expert support if it becomes a dispute.

Where does the personal data live, and how do we respond to a DSAR within the window without over-disclosing?

Map the data, then design a review and production workflow that controls cost. The hard part is rarely locating the data; it is reviewing and turning it over efficiently.

A defensible response workflow, cross-border handling that respects GDPR and equivalents, and a repeatable process for the next request.

What data do we hold, why, and what would we be able to show about how our systems were run?

Data maps, retention policy, and Data Footprint reduction, plus audit and compliance readiness across the US and EU. Designed by people who have seen which gaps get exploited in litigation.

A governance strategy that lowers cost and risk at once, and controls you can actually evidence.

Who will stand behind this opinion when it is challenged, and will the method survive the challenge?

Expert opinions, fact witness, PMK, 30(b)(6), and data neutral engagements. Our case portfolio includes both defense and plaintiff matters, and our CEO has served as special master on multiple occasions.

A report written to withstand scrutiny, and an expert who will present it and stand behind it on paper, in deposition, and at trial.