This case stems from the brief relationship between two coworkers, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Tony Blevins and Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Jolene Read, the nature of which is hotly debated. Both parties previously worked at MainSpring, Inc. (“MainSpring”), an information technology firm located in Frederick, Maryland. It is uncontested that the parties had sexual interactions on multiple occasions in the summer and fall of 2022, but the parties have different accounts of the nature of those interactions.

Throughout the course of their relationship, Blevins and Read met on several occasions, engaged in consensual sexual intercourse, spent hours on the phone together and exchanged hundreds of private messages with each other via text messages, Microsoft Teams and in a shared Apple note.

Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Defendant’s expert Ashraf Massoud.

Computer Forensics Expert Witness

Ashraf Massoud has over 14 years of experience in state law enforcement, including computer forensics investigations, criminal investigations, and internal affairs investigations. He successfully developed the computer forensic program for a large state government agency in California, which he then managed for 14 years.

Want to know more about the challenges Ashraf Massoud has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

Discussion by the Court

Defendant stated that Massoud would testify about the Apple Note at issue in the case, which Plaintiff alleged “facilitated private and intimate communications” between the parties during the 2022 relationship.

Plaintiff argued that Massoud’s analysis boils down to a text comparison of different versions of the shared Apple Note, which would be within the realm of the jury’s expertise.

Defendant contended that Massoud’s testimony provided necessary technological explanations to the factfinder regarding what Apple Notes are, the features of Apple Note, and the editability of such Notes.

Ultimately, the Court agreed with Defendant that the testimony of Massoud should not be excluded in its entirety, but there may be limits on the scope of Massoud’s testimony. Massoud’s report showed that he has the experience and technical expertise required to provide expert testimony on these questions.

Massoud will also be permitted to testify as an expert on the differences between the text of the different copies of the Apple Note to the extent that the comparison proceeds from the Cellebrite extraction, and requires an explanation of the information provided by that extraction. He may not, however, testify as an expert solely to point out differences in printed documents that are visible to anyone. As Plaintiff pointed out, finding those discrepancies in the text is something the factfinder is more than capable of doing; an expert is unnecessary.

Held

The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Ashraf Massoud.

Key Takeaway:

The authenticity of the Apple Note that the parties used to communicate is a hotly contested issue. Given that the nature of their communications would provide information about the nature of their relationship, having an expert opine on Apple Notes generally, what kind of information is stored, and how individuals can interact within and edit the Notes would be helpful to the factfinder.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Blevins V. Read
Docket Number:	8:24cv22
Court Name:	United States District Court, Maryland
Order Date:	November 19, 2025

Category: Computer Forensics Expert Witness

Computer Forensics Expert’s Testimony on Apple Notes Admitted

Computer Forensics Expert’s Testimony on Apple Notes Admitted