The archive
Field notes on digital evidence, cyber-litigation, and the law of AI. Every piece is sourced, cited, and filed under one of two sections.
Recent training-data and model-inspection orders show that the ordinary rules of relevance and proportionality, not novelty, decide how far discovery reaches into a machine-learning system.
Read the analysis →How courts are applying Rules 901 and 902 to synthetic audio, video, and documents — and what proposed Rules 901(c) and 707 would change.
Read the analysis →A technical special master can only do what the order authorizes. A precise appointment order prevents scope fights, protects sensitive material, and tells everyone how the master’s findings will be reviewed.
Read the analysis →The three titles are used loosely and often interchangeably, but they carry different authority and arise from different sources. Knowing which role the case needs sharpens the appointing order.
Read the analysis →Machine-learning systems break the assumptions behind ordinary discovery. A technical special master gives courts a way to examine models, training data, and outputs that the rules were not built to reach.
Read the analysis →Rule 53 gives courts the authority to refer technical disputes to a neutral. The harder question is when an appointment is warranted. Five recurring signals tell the bench it is time.
Read the analysis →The weekly brief
One sourced analysis a week on digital evidence and the law of AI, plus the notable special-master rulings from the past seven days.