Expert Witness Support for Internet Defamation Litigation
Internet defamation cases turn on technical questions that most litigators don't handle routinely: whether a post can still be located, whether an anonymous account can realistically be traced to a real person, whether a review reflects an actual transaction, and how to translate a search ranking drop into a defensible damages number. I've spent more than 25 years working with search engines, social platforms, domain names, and web analytics as a technical SEO (Search Engine Optimization) and internet investigations consultant, and I bring that same rigor to every expert witness engagement.
My practice is built specifically around supporting litigation. That means every investigation is conducted with an eye toward how the evidence and methodology will be received in deposition, at a Daubert or Frye hearing, and in front of a jury — not simply toward answering the underlying factual question. Documentation standards, chain of custody, and defensible methodology aren't an afterthought; they're built into the process from the first day of the engagement.
I work with plaintiff's counsel building a defamation claim, defense counsel evaluating or rebutting one, and in-house and outside counsel advising businesses on reputational exposure. Every engagement begins the same way: an honest, technically grounded assessment of what the evidence actually shows and what it's likely to support.
How I Support Your Matter
My work spans seven core service areas, each reflecting a category of question that comes up repeatedly in internet defamation litigation. Most matters touch more than one of these at once — a social media investigation frequently leads directly into an anonymous poster identification question, which in turn feeds into a damages analysis once liability is established.
The Case for Early Involvement
The single most common pattern I see in matters where I'm brought in late is preventable: evidence that existed at the time of filing, or even at the time the client first came to counsel, that is simply gone by the time an expert is retained. Social media posts, reviews, and profile pages disappear far more often, and far faster, than most attorneys expect — and the common assumption that the Wayback Machine will have a copy turns out to be wrong more often than it's right.
Bringing an expert in at intake, rather than after written discovery has closed, changes what's possible. Early involvement means evidence gets preserved correctly the first time, the technical feasibility of identifying an anonymous defendant gets assessed before resources are committed to a John Doe subpoena that may not pan out, and damages theories get built on defensible methodology from the outset rather than retrofitted under deadline pressure.
I am not an attorney, and nothing I provide constitutes legal advice or a legal conclusion about whether content meets the standard for defamation in a given jurisdiction. What I provide is the technical and investigative foundation — evidence, analysis, and testimony — that counsel needs to build and try the case.