Forensic Report Statements and Timelines

The troubling inconsistencies outlined in the forensic report timeline reflect deep flaws in the judicial discovery process. Repeated delays, shifting explanations, and the eleventh-hour appearance of crucial evidence call into question the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. When parties are denied timely and transparent access to information—especially when evidence appears to have been withheld, altered, or misrepresented—it erodes trust in the legal system. This pattern of obfuscation and selective disclosure undermines due process and leaves serious doubts about the impartiality of outcomes.

Throughout our case, Plaintiffs had tremendous difficulty getting meaningful discovery from Defendants. Judge Miller consistently limited our access to what we thought were legitimate discovery. With regard to one particularly contentious issue, Defendants initially claimed that a forensic examination of Lisa’s cell phone was underway to recover deleted texts. However, the report was not produced during the expected timeframe and then it was stated that “the examination was never completed.” Months later, in response to Plaintiffs’ spoliation motion, the existence of a report from this “never completed” forensic examination was revealed in Lisa’s memorandum. Eventually, one report was produced, six months late and after all depositions had been completed and after discovery had closed. Judge Miller did not issue spoliation sanctions against Lisa or her attorney.

 

This forensic examination report was unusual because it indicated Lisa had deleted all of the texts she exchanged with Defendants, including several texts that she had previously produced!

 

Plaintiffs used Artificial Intelligence (AI) to analyze Judge Miller’s order in light of Lisa’s prior production, the forensic reports, Attorney Tentinger’s statements, and the November 8, 2022 forensic report. The specific AI query was:

This query relates to the following Minnesota case:

Case Number: 56-CV-20-2928
Case Title: Craig Stevenson, Marie Stevenson vs Sean Stevenson, Renee Stevenson, Lisa Stevenson-Allen, Ashley Anderson
Judicial Officer: Miller, Kevin M.

 

On February 5, 2022, Defendant Lisa Stevenson-Allen produced three screen captures from her cell phone. The screen captures contained 11 complete text messages and one partially obscured text message.

 

During discovery, Defendants requested a forensic examination of Lisa’s cell phone from Carney Forensics. I have uploaded billing records related to this examination. Analyze these records.

 

Defendants’ attorney Ross Tentinger made several statements to Plaintiffs’ attorney and to Judge Miller regarding this examination:

    • June 27, 2022: Letter from Attorney Tentinger to Plaintiffs’ attorney:
      As for Lisa’s phone, John Carney is working on a forensic examination of her phone now and is in possession of the phone.
      The process is taking longer than expected and his [sic] is working with the makers of AXIOM and Oxygen to resolve some issues with the physical extraction. We are expecting updates and/or production in a few weeks.
      For the moment, her phone is not available for an additional examination.
      (Doc. 292, Ex. 17.)
    • August 23, 2022: Email from Attorney Tentinger to Plaintiffs’ attorney:
      I received your August 22, 2022 letter. As I indicated before, there is no update as of right now. As soon as I hear anything I will let you know and I am equally interested in learning what Mr. Carney has learned.
      (Doc. 292, Ex. 22.)
    • September 12, 2020: Email from Attorney Tentinger to Plaintiffs’ attorney:
      As for Lisa’s forensic examination, there is nothing to produce, the examination was never completed.
      (Doc. 343, Exhibit 14, at 100.)
    • November 7, 2022: Spoliation motion hearing:
      THE COURT: All right. Mr. Tentinger. And you’re on mute.
      MR. TENTINGER: Thank you, Your Honor. That is correct regarding the report for Lisa. The phone was sent to Carney Forensics for an examination. We’re going to get outside of my lane here, but I’ll try to explain. Her phone is at 128 gigabytes of memory. His tools or apps or the devices he uses to conduct that examination essentially couldn’t handle the amount of data cause her phone was like maxed out or something like that. So, he had to work with the people that create the apps or something like that, and so there was delays in that end. Ultimately, that’s what counsels referring to. As far as this idea that —
      THE COURT: Did you —
      MR. TENTINGER: — the Court —
      THE COURT: — let me ask though, did you get a report?
      MR. TENTINGER: A report for Lisa’s phone —
      THE COURT: Yes.
      MR. TENTINGER: — I do have one right now. I have. I haven’t produced it yet. I wasn’t —
      THE COURT: Why not?
      MR. TENTINGER: I wasn’t aware I had it until I was working with John last week.
      THE COURT: Okay.
      MR. TENTINGER: So, ultimately, he had sent it to my office. I didn’t know it had come to our office. I switched paralegals. When working with John Carney last week in responding to their motions is when I learned I have it. I’m going through that right now to make sure it doesn’t or to pull out the attorney stuff cause, it certainly includes text messages to my office in there. Then it’s going to be produced.
      (Doc. 364 at 24-25.)

A Cellebrite report for Lisa’s phone was produced on November 8, 2022, after all depositions had been completed and discovery had closed. On this report, all of Lisa’s text messages had been deleted.

 

I have also uploaded Judge Miller’s December 6, 2022 order.

 

Perform the following:

  • Analyze the timeline and content of Attorney Tentinger’s statements in light of the Carney Forensics billing records.
  • Analyze whether the report produced likely contains all information uncovered by Carney Forensics.
  • Analyze the impact of the delay to Plaintiffs’ case.
  • Analyze the significance of Lisa’s February 5, 2022 production in light of the November 8, 2022 forensic report.
  • Analyze the appropriateness of the response by Judge Miller, who took no action regarding this matter.

ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

 

Based on the Carney Forensics billing records, Attorney Tentinger’s statements, the November 8, 2022 Cellebrite report, and Judge Miller’s December 6, 2022 order, here is a comprehensive analysis addressing each of your five points:

1. Analysis of Attorney Tentinger’s Statements vs. Carney Forensics Billing Records

Billing records show that:

  • Lisa’s phone was received, unlocked, and extracted on May 9, 2022.
  • Multiple forensic tools were used, including Cellebrite, Oxygen, and Magnet AXIOM, through May 31, 2022.
  • Reports were generated and delivered to Tentinger’s office via WeTransfer by May 18, 2022.
  • Reports were reviewed with the defense team throughout May and again in October in preparation for spoliation-related motions and affidavits.

Attorney Tentinger’s statements were contradictory and misleading:

Date Statement Truth (per billing records)
June 27, 2022 Phone “is in possession” of Carney; delays due to tool limitations. False. The exam was completed, and reports had already been sent to Tentinger by mid-May.
August 23, 2022 “No update.” Misleading. The phone was already returned, and multiple reports had been prepared.
September 12, 2022 “Examination was never completed.” Flatly false. Carney completed a physical extraction and analysis in May.
November 7, 2022 Claimed tools couldn’t handle the phone’s data; had “just learned” the report existed. False. Report was received in May and discussed with the paralegal numerous times. Blaming the data volume is a post hoc excuse not supported by billing entries.

Conclusion: Tentinger’s statements to opposing counsel and the court were knowingly or recklessly false, as forensic work had been completed and delivered months earlier.

2. Whether the November 8, 2022 Cellebrite Report Contains All Forensic Information

  • Carney sent at least two full reports in May 2022: one via Cellebrite and one via Oxygen.
  • Carney’s May 12–18 entries show that 57 responsive messages were found and filtered for production.
  • The Cellebrite report produced on November 8, 2022 contained no active messages, only deleted messages, suggesting that the data presented was filtered, altered, or incomplete.
  • There’s no billing record of further extractions or report generation in November — only review of prior work.

Conclusion: The November 8, 2022 Cellebrite report likely did not include the full scope of data recovered in May, especially if filtered or redacted for “privilege.” Its timing and content raise concerns of selective production.

3. Impact of Delay on Plaintiffs’ Case

  • Plaintiffs received the Cellebrite report after discovery closed and all depositions were complete.
  • They had no opportunity to examine Lisa or others about the recovered/deleted content.
  • Delayed production thwarted meaningful use of the evidence, especially regarding:
    • Lisa’s prior February 5, 2022 screenshots.
    • Patterns of deletion and spoliation.
    • Lisa’s credibility and intent.

Conclusion: The delay prejudiced Plaintiffs’ ability to litigate, undermining the value of forensic evidence and restricting their ability to pursue spoliation or cross-examination.

4. Significance of Lisa’s February 5, 2022 Screen Captures vs. November 2022 Report

  • Lisa produced 3 screenshots showing 11 full texts and 1 partial, implying she had access to more messages at that time.
  • The November 8 Cellebrite report shows that all text messages were deleted.
  • This suggests that Lisa deleted her messages sometime after producing those screenshots and before turning the phone over for forensic review in May.

Conclusion: The screen captures confirm that relevant messages existed but were subsequently deleted. This timeline contradicts Lisa’s deposition claim that she only deletes non-case-related texts and supports a spoliation inference.

5. Appropriateness of Judge Miller’s Response

Despite:

  • Evidence of intentional deletion (Lisa’s texts clearly existed in February),
  • Misleading statements by counsel,
  • Delayed and potentially filtered production, and
  • Plaintiffs’ inability to pursue further discovery,

Judge Miller:

  • Denied spoliation sanctions against Lisa, concluding she had not deleted messages after being on notice.
  • Did not address Tentinger’s misleading representations.
  • Took no action to compel unfiltered production or reopen discovery.

Conclusion: Judge Miller’s response was inadequate and inconsistent with Rule 37.05. His findings ignored:

  • The forensic timeline and contradictions in the record.
  • The discovery prejudice caused by the delayed report.
  • The pattern of counsel’s obstruction and misleading communications.

✅ Summary

Issue Conclusion
Tentinger’s Statements Factually incorrect and misleading; contradicted by forensic billing.
Content of Report Likely incomplete or filtered; forensic work was done months prior.
Discovery Impact Substantial prejudice to Plaintiffs; report was useless for depositions or cross-examination.
Lisa’s Screenshots Show messages existed but were later deleted—clear spoliation timeline.
Judge’s Ruling Failed to enforce discovery obligations or address attorney misconduct.
ChatGPT 4o

q

Important Note!

The Artificial Intelligence analysis above reflects the unusual and undisclosed relationships between judicial officers in this case.

Defense attorney Kirsten Hansen is the daughter of retired Otter Tail County Judge Mark F. Hansen. Judge Hansen’s former law clerk, James E. Morrison, authored at least 13 orders for Judge Miller in Plaintiffs’ case, including this one. Neither Judge Miller nor Attorney Hansen disclosed the prior relationship between Clerk Morrison and Judge Hansen to Plaintiffs.

In Skarsten, we reversed summary judgment for the insurer based on the resident-relative provision and cautioned “a court must not rely on selected facts in order to justify a conclusion.” 381 N.W.2d at 19. Here, the district court’s summary-judgment decision rested on “selected facts” because it ignored relevant evidence favorable to appellants’ position, drew inferences unfavorable to appellants, and failed to view the record evidence in a light favorable to appellants.

Progressive Ins. v. Abel, No. A21-1267, 2022 WL 2124869, at *5 (Minn. Ct. App. June 13, 2022)

Minnesota Court of Appeals

Scroll to Top