Common Questions
Are you an attorney, and can you tell us whether we have a viable defamation claim?
No. I am not a licensed attorney and I do not provide legal advice or determine whether specific content meets the legal definition of defamation in any jurisdiction. I provide technical investigation, evidence documentation, damages analysis, and expert testimony on the internet-technology aspects of a matter, working under the direction of retaining counsel.
Do you work with both plaintiff's and defense counsel?
Yes. I take engagements from both sides, including rebuttal and second-opinion review of opposing experts' reports and methodology. My conclusions follow the evidence and applicable methodology regardless of which party retained me, and I say so directly when the evidence doesn't support a particular theory.
How early in a matter should we retain you?
As early as possible — ideally at intake, before evidence has had a chance to disappear and before resources are committed to a subpoena or identification strategy that may not be technically feasible. The most common limitation I encounter in matters where I'm retained later in litigation is evidence that existed earlier but is no longer available, which early involvement would have prevented.
Will the Wayback Machine (archive.org) have a copy of the defamatory content if my client didn't preserve it?
Often not. Archive.org's Wayback Machine only has a snapshot of a page if that specific URL happened to be crawled at the right time, and most social media posts, individual reviews, and profile pages are never crawled at all. Relying on archive.org after the fact is one of the most common reasons evidence turns out to be unavailable in matters I review. I recommend counsel instruct clients on evidence preservation at the very first meeting.
Can you identify who posted anonymous defamatory content?
Sometimes, depending on the platform, what technical data is available, and whether legal process such as a subpoena is used to obtain platform records. I provide an early, honest technical feasibility assessment so counsel can make an informed decision about pursuing formal identification before significant resources are committed.
What does a typical expert report look like, and how is it structured for deposition?
A typical report lays out the underlying facts, the methodology used to investigate them, the specific data relied upon, and the conclusions reached, structured to anticipate cross-examination on each finding. Every conclusion is tied to a specific, citable piece of evidence or data, and I draw an explicit line between what the evidence establishes and what it merely suggests.
Do you handle Daubert or Frye challenges to your methodology?
Yes. I structure my methodology from the outset of every engagement to be defensible under Daubert or Frye scrutiny — documented, reproducible, and grounded in generally accepted technical practice rather than novel or unsupported techniques — and I'm available to address methodology challenges directly with counsel as they arise.
Can you support clients with reputation cleanup alongside an active litigation matter?
Yes, through Hartzer Consulting. Search result cleanup, monitoring, and related reputation recovery services can run in parallel with litigation or after resolution, coordinated to avoid conflicting with the litigation strategy.
Get in Touch
Every matter is different, and procedural posture and deadlines shape what's realistic. If your question isn't answered here, the fastest way to get a specific answer is a direct conversation about the case.