We help counsel understand what location data does and does not show. We analyze GPS and spatial datasets, review opposing experts' methods, and deliver reports, interactive maps and exhibits your team can use, whether you need one discrete assignment or the full engagement.
Services
Retain us for one piece, such as a single review or a set of exhibits, or for the full engagement.
The other side's spatial analysis drives an important conclusion.
You receive
We review the source data, assumptions, geographic definitions, time windows and calculations, and test whether the conclusions follow.
The answer is buried in thousands or millions of GPS points, timestamps, addresses or boundaries.
You receive
We structure the data and answer the questions counsel is actually asking. Where did it happen? When? How close? Inside which boundary? How often? What changed? Which records support that?
The matter calls for a designated expert, or you want analysis first and a designation decision later.
You receive
Simcha Levental prepares expert reports and provides testimony within his qualifications and the engagement's scope. Consulting-only support is also available.
Geography matters to how a class or group of claimants is defined or compared.
You receive
Geographic comparisons inform counsel's assessment; they are not a statistical or legal determination.
Spatial analysis supporting counsel's evaluation of geographic coverage, relevant population characteristics, and potential class representatives against defined criteria. We apply criteria consistently, keep inputs traceable, and document limitations.
Your team needs to explore the evidence, not just look at a picture of it.
You receive
We build a browser-based map where counsel can filter records, compare layers, inspect individual locations and step through time. We keep an internal analytical workspace separate from presentation views.
A finding has to be understood quickly by a judge, jury, mediator or client.
You receive
We produce annotated maps, geographic comparisons, location timelines and map books, each with a legend, sources, dates and stated assumptions.
When to involve us
Six situations we see most often. Pick the closest one to jump to the service that fits.
Rebuttal reports
A persuasive map can rest on a narrow time window, an unstated filter or a boundary drawn one way instead of another. We look at how the result was produced, not just how it looks.
What data was used, what was excluded, and what the report doesn't say.
Where the data and the method description allow it.
Geographic definitions, time windows, distance thresholds, filters and calculations.
Do the conclusions follow from the data, or go beyond it?
Explanations the analysis didn't address.
In the opposing work, and in ours.
Work product, within the agreed scope
An analytical review memorandum, an issue-by-issue response table, supporting calculations and visual comparisons, and a rebuttal report.
A review reports what the evidence shows. Sometimes that confirms parts of the opposing analysis, and knowing that early is useful too.
Testing a disputed assumption
Synthetic example| Assumption in the opposing analysis | Test performed | What the data shows | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Records within 500 m count as “at the site.” | Re-ran with 100 m, 250 m and 500 m thresholds. | Result depends on the threshold: 10 of 10 records at 500 m, 3 at 250 m, 1 at 100 m. | Sensitive |
| Analysis window starts at 08:00. | Extended the window to the full day of records provided. | Earlier records add no site visits; conclusion unchanged. | Holds |
| Area boundary drawn from a simplified outline. | Compared against the detailed boundary layer. | 3 records fall outside the detailed boundary; the report does not address this. | Unaddressed |
500 m threshold (as reported)
10 of 10 records inside
250 m threshold (tested)
3 of 10 records inside
filled: inside threshold hollow: outside threshold site
Built to be checked
So your team, the other side's expert and the court can follow how each finding was reached.
Illustrative outputs
The examples below use synthetic data created for illustration. They are not from any engagement.
Location and time review
Synthetic example| Point | Time | Source row | Type | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 09:04 | R-0112 | ● GPS | ±12 m |
| 2 | 09:11 | R-0115 | ● GPS | ±8 m |
| 3 | 09:53 | R-0131 | ◆ Network | ±45 m |
| 4 | 10:02 | R-0134 | ● GPS | ±10 m |
The expert
Simcha Levental leads Geospatial Solutions LLC, a GIS and spatial-analysis firm based in Washington, DC. He has served as an expert witness and prepared rebuttal analysis involving spatial and location data. His work centers on large-scale GPS and location-data analysis, complex spatial datasets, and explaining technical findings clearly to counsel and fact-finders.
Geospatial Solutions provides technical analysis. We work alongside counsel and do not provide legal advice.
Request CV and qualificationsEngagement
The initial discussion never requires confidential details. Materials change hands only after a conflict check.
A short call about the need, the type of data and the deadline. No confidential details required.
We run a conflict check and agree on scope, deliverables and whether the role is consulting or testifying.
We exchange materials using a method agreed with counsel.
We document sources, methods and assumptions as we work.
We walk counsel through draft findings and discuss limitations openly.
Final report, maps, exhibits and supporting data, in the agreed formats.
FAQ
No. Many engagements are consulting-only analysis. If the matter later calls for a designated expert, that is a separate scope decision.
Yes. A review memorandum can tell you where the analysis is strong or weak before you decide on a rebuttal report.
GPS and device location records, timestamped observations, addresses, parcels, administrative and custom boundaries, and other spatial datasets, including large volumes.
Not by itself. A record shows a reported position at a point in time, with some accuracy. It doesn't establish identity or what happened between records. We state those limits in our findings.
Our conclusions follow the evidence. We'll tell you what the data supports, what it doesn't, and where it is uncertain.
Both depend on the data and the scope. After the initial discussion, we'll say what is realistic for your deadline and provide a scoped estimate.
Not through this website. After the conflict check, we'll agree on a transfer method with your team.
An interactive map is a workspace for exploring the evidence. An exhibit is a fixed, versioned view of a specific finding. We provide both where needed.
Contact
Tell us what you need and when. We'll respond to arrange a short initial discussion.
Need the expert's background first? Request CV and qualifications. For anything else, see our other services.
