"Expert" claiming proprietary work product on simulation files??

Litigation Topics and News Relative to Accident Reconstruction
Post Reply
MSI
Site Admin
Posts: 1264
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:37 pm

"Expert" claiming proprietary work product on simulation files??

Post by MSI » Tue Feb 12, 2019 4:26 pm

Now that a certain case in a certain jurisdiction is over and out i can pose this question:
(and without naming an expert or jurisdiction)
I ask the following:
  • Have any of you encountered an expert who used a simulation to simulate an accident and/or the EDR recorded steer and speeds, etc and then maybe also had a 3D survey prepared and then...
    claimed that all the simulation files and survey files were proprietary?
    In other words they would ONLY provide limited outputs and a printed 500+ PDF of the survey (which had arbitrary line breaks so it could NOT be used when saved as text)
In rebuttal to our motion to produce the simulation files they used arguments like:
  • “Procure the simulation at great expense to Plaintiffs’
  • “providing the data in the format requested by Defendant leaves the data subject to manipulation, misuse, and abuse”
And they prevailed in this state court. Very strange indeed (talk about using a secret weapon!)

Fortunately in the case even without the aforementioned input files we scared them enough for them to realize that this might not play well with the jury. When we deposed their "expert" and when they deposed us they came to the conclusion to NOT CALL THAT EXPERT AT TRIAL!
However it was a major waste of time (maybe a red herring?)

MAIN QUESTIONS ARE:
  • Have any of you encountered this in any case? and if so, can you provide details?
  • Also if any of you are aware of any case law related to this type of situation?
In Federal court it generally is required that experts exchange files so that the opposing expert can re-run and verify the simulation and test sensitivities. However anyone aware of specific rulings related to 'simulation input files' in electronic format? They got the judge to believe the printouts were enough (and sometimes in some instances printed output may be adequate however in this case, with 3D inputs, 3D surveys and importing the survey into the 3D software, the printouts were not adequate to allow verifying the results of their simulation)
In this state jurisdiction they allowed them to hide the electronic files so curious if others have encountered this gamesmanship.
Our interest is so we can publish to the web any related case law rulings to assist others in the future to avoid having to tap dance in this type of crap...

Please respond to this thread or email us at forum@mchenrysoftware.com. All emailed respnses will be kept confidential unless you say it is ok to identify you.

Brian McHenry
Question? Comment? Please email forum@mchenrysoftware.com. Also see the McHenry Forum Index
Visit McHenrySoftware.com for technical information & software.
(c) McHenry Software, Inc ALL Rights Reserved.

MSI
Site Admin
Posts: 1264
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:37 pm

Re: "Expert" claiming proprietary work product on simulation files??

Post by MSI » Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:27 pm

Feb 18, 2018: Have had a few responses so far saying a lot of folks are trying to hide their simulations behind the 'printed output adequate' scenario which is ridiculous in our cloud scan world where billions of points have to be transformed into simulation surfaces (for HVE, PC-CRASH and all the rest!) and all inputs ARE NOT included in the printouts!
Main point is DEMAND they provide electronic versions of all the inputs files (simulation and raw survey files) so you can re-import, rerun and verify their results so that you KNOW that the inputs they provided give the results they relied on!
we will post more soon and hopefully some case law supporting this requirement!
and from a paper a while back...
  • SAE paper number 980018, Documenting Scientific Visualizations and Computer Animations used in Collision Reconstruction Presentations which includes as the Summary:
    • “This paper has presented a proposed standard for documenting computer generated images, animations, scientific visualizations, etc. The basic standard is that any still images or videos should be documented such that any qualified analyst can reproduce them. This is the requirement for the scientific community in general and should be adopted in the crash reconstruction community. It is important to note that this standard does not refer to any method of generating these images or videos. There is no implication that any one method or any one program is superior to others. This standard addresses only the images and videos and does not address the analysis or opinions being expressed by analyst. However, the only way to fully understand the analysis being presented or discussed is to have the ability to duplicate the images or video being presented”
Question? Comment? Please email forum@mchenrysoftware.com. Also see the McHenry Forum Index
Visit McHenrySoftware.com for technical information & software.
(c) McHenry Software, Inc ALL Rights Reserved.

MSI
Site Admin
Posts: 1264
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:37 pm

Re: "Expert" claiming proprietary work product on simulation files??

Post by MSI » Mon Feb 25, 2019 3:05 pm

Here's some information related to the topic from the American Bar Association
    • A missing element in the ABA document is that any party who uses a computer simulation should be required to produce all raw information(survey or cloud scan data, vehicle specification data, etc) and all simulation inputs and outputs IN NATIVE ELECTRONIC FORMAT FOR THE PROGRAM(s) BEING USED to permit ALL PARTIES to
      • (1) verify that the information was properly input/entered into the computer program and that
        (2) the inputs provided produce the results cited by the expert, and that
        (3) the analysis is not extremely sensitive to any arbitrary or subjective inputs used by the expert.
      This should be a requirement for any and all courts which allow computer animation or simulation.
      This has been required in the courts in our 40 years experience in the courts.
      Only recently have we seen or heard of some experts trying to hide their animation and simulation analyses behind 'proprietary' arguments and/or where they will only provide incomplete printed disclosures of inputs and/or outputs.
The ABA document includes:
  • H. Computer Animations and Computer Simulations.
    Computer animations and computer simulations also raise unique evidentiary issues.(ref 60) Because of the persuasive power of demonstrative evidence, such as animations and simulations, courts are obligated to make a thorough foundational inquiry into its reliability before admitting it, giving the potential that it may mislead, confuse, divert or otherwise prejudice purposes of a trial if not reliable.(ref 61) The court in Sayles explained the difference between computer animations and computer simulations as follows:
    • Computer generated evidence is an increasingly common form of demonstrative evidence. If the purpose of the computer evidence is to illustrate and explain a witness’ testimony, courts usually refer to the evidence as an animation. In contrast, a simulation is based on scientific or physical principles and data entered into a computer, which is programmed to analyze the data and draw a conclusion from it, and courts generally require proof to show the validity of the science before the simulation evidence is admitted.(Ref 62)
    The Lorraine court reviewed the cases and observed that courts have generally allowed the admission of computer animations if authenticated by testimony of a witness with personal knowledge of the content of the animation, upon a showing that it fairly and adequately portrays the facts and that it will help illustrate the testimony given in the case.63 In Friend v. Time Mfg. Co., 2006 WL 2135807 at *7 (D. Ariz. July 28, 2006), the court held that, at a minimum, with respect to animations, the proponent must show the computer simulation fairly and accurately depicts what it represents, whether through the computer expert who prepared it or some other witness who is qualified to so testify. The opposing party must then be afforded an opportunity for cross-examination.
    On the other hand, computer simulations are treated as a form of scientific evidence offered for a substantive, rather than demonstrative, purpose.(ref 64) Courts often treat such simulations like other scientific tests and condition admissibility upon showings that
    • (1) the computer is functioning properly;
      (2) the input and underlying equations are sufficiently complete and accurate (and disclosed to the opposing party so that they may challenge them); and
      (3) the program is generally accepted by the appropriate community of scientists. (Ref 65)
    The State v. Swinton case, supra, adopted the Commercial Union case but added that the key to authenticating computer simulations is to determine their reliability. The court noted that the problems that could arise with such evidence include
    • (1) the underlying information itself could be unreliable;
      (2) the entry of the information in the computer could be erroneous;
      (3) the computer hardware could be unreliable;
      (4) the computer software programs could be unreliable;
      (5) the execution of the instructions which transforms the information in some way – for example, by calculating numbers, sorting names or storing information or retrieving it later – could be unreliable;
      (6) the output of the computer, such as the printout transcript or graphics, could be flawed;
      (7) the security system used to control access to the computer could be compromised; and
      (8) the user of the system could make errors. (Ref 66)
    References:
    • 60. See Imwinkelried, Evidentiary Foundations at § 4.09[4][a].
      61. See, e.g., Taylor v. United States, 759 A.2d 604, 608 (D.C. 2000); Hanon, Computer Generated Evidence: Testing the Envelope, 63 DEF. COUNS. J. 353, 361 (1996).
      62. State v. Sayles, 662 N.W.2d 1, 9 (Iowa 2003).
      63. 241 F.R.D. at 559-60 (citing cases).
      64. Weinstein at § 900.03[1]; Imwinkelried, Evidentiary Foundations at § 4.09[5][a], [c].
      65. See Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Boston Edison Co., 591 N.E.2d 165, 168 (Mass. 1992).
      66. 847 A.2d 921, 942-43.
Question? Comment? Please email forum@mchenrysoftware.com. Also see the McHenry Forum Index
Visit McHenrySoftware.com for technical information & software.
(c) McHenry Software, Inc ALL Rights Reserved.

Post Reply