An abstract menu illustration visually represents discovery request Torrential Downpour logs.

In a Torrential Downpour case, “discovery” is where you win time and clarity. It is also where you can lose momentum. Broad requests invite broad objections.

So, your goal is not “give us everything RoundUp ever did.” Your goal is a discovery request Torrential Downpour logs package that is:

  • Specific
  • Run-linked
  • Testable

This post provides a request menu organized by purpose. It also includes example request language you can adapt. Finally, it lays out a short meet and confer strategy section and an expert-assisted discovery workflow.

Why targeted requests work better than “RoundUp” requests

RoundUp is a suite name. Torrential Downpour is the BitTorrent module investigators use in many cases. If you ask for “all RoundUp materials,” you often get boilerplate resistance.

A better approach is to tie each request to the run in your case. That is how you satisfy materiality. It also is how you keep the judge focused. Rule 16 is a common starting point for that materiality framing [1].

If you want the bigger picture on why “source code” requests often fail and what courts prefer instead, see: Torrential Downpour source code discovery.

First principle: anchor every request to a claim

Before you draft anything, extract the government’s claims. Make a short list.

Examples include:

  • “Single source download”
  • “Downloaded the entire file”
  • “Hash verified”
  • “Same IP/port over time”
  • “Same torrent hash”

Then draft your discovery requests as “proof requests.” You are not requesting “stuff.” You are requesting the artifacts that prove each claim. When the government holds information that is favorable and material to guilt or punishment, Brady obligations can matter too [2].

The request menu (organized by purpose)

Use this menu like a checklist. Pick the sections that match your case posture. Then keep each request narrowly tied to the run dates.

1) Attribution: subscriber → network → device

Goal: test whether the government can reliably connect the download event to the location and the seized device.

Request menu:

  • TD run outputs that record the target IP address, port, and timestamps for each connection attempt
  • ISP return records (lease start/end, time zone handling, and any NAT/CGNAT notes if provided)
  • Any investigator notes about Wi‑Fi context, router observations, or network topology
  • Any records of repeat observations of the same IP address across multiple dates (if claimed)

Example request language:

  • “Produce all Torrential Downpour output files (including raw logs and exports) for the investigative run(s) dated __ through __ that reference IP address __ and port __, including any retry attempts or reconnections.”
  • “Produce ISP subscriber/assignment records relied upon to link IP address __ to subscriber/location __ for the timestamp(s) used in the warrant affidavit, including lease start/end times and time zone reference.”

2) Completion / receipt: what was actually transferred and verified

Goal: test whether the government proved transfer, completion, and verification the way it describes in the affidavit.

This is where many cases turn. “Partial” versus “complete” is not semantics. It is proof strength.

Request menu:

  • Completion status artifacts for the run (structured logs, summaries, and any exported “case report”)
  • Hash verification records that show what hash type was used and when verification occurred
  • Any notes describing visual confirmation versus hash confirmation (if applicable)

Example request language:

  • “Produce all Torrential Downpour records reflecting completion status, piece completion, and verification status for the file(s) alleged in the affidavit, including any artifacts commonly generated as Datawritten.xml and downloadstatus.xml (or functionally equivalent outputs).”
  • “Produce all records showing the hash value(s) used to identify and verify the downloaded file(s), including the hash type (e.g., torrent infohash vs file hash) and the source of any known-hash database used.”

If you want a lawyer-friendly description of what those structured artifacts tend to show, see: Datawritten.xml and downloadstatus.xml.

3) Tool operation: what the software did in this run (without asking for source code)

Goal: test the government’s operational claims without turning the dispute into a broad “tool attack.”

Request menu:

  • Tool version/build identifier used during the run
  • Any run configuration files or settings exports (for the run)
  • Any standard operating procedure or checklist used for TD downloads (limited to the steps relevant to your case)
  • Any training materials the analyst relied on for the run workflow (narrowly targeted)

Example request language:

  • “Produce the Torrential Downpour version/build identifier and any run-specific configuration or settings exports used in the investigative run(s) dated __ through __.”
  • “Produce any SOP, checklist, or run guide the analyst followed for performing a Torrential Downpour controlled download and documenting completion/verification, limited to the procedures applicable to the run(s) in this case.”

4) Analyst validation: competence, repeatability, and QC

Goal: obtain the records that show whether the analyst followed a repeatable workflow and how errors are avoided.

Request menu:

  • Any QC checklist or supervisor review notes for the run
  • Any internal validation steps documented (e.g., re-download verification, hash re-checks)
  • Any disclosures of limitations or known issues that are tied to the tool version used

Example request language:

  • “Produce any quality control, peer review, supervisor review, or validation documentation for the investigative run(s) in this case, including any checklists or sign-offs.”

Short meet and confer strategy (practical)

Meet and confer is often where you narrow disputes before motion practice. Treat it like a technical agenda.

Here is a simple approach:

  • Start with 6 to 10 “must-have” artifacts tied to affidavit claims.
  • Offer to narrow date ranges and file types.
  • Ask the government to identify what it already produced that satisfies each claim.
  • If they refuse, ask them to state the reason (security, burden, relevance).
  • Then propose the least intrusive alternative that still allows testing.

The tone matters. If you frame the request as “we need raw logs to verify your narrative,” you often get farther than “we need your code.”

Expert-assisted discovery workflow

This workflow helps counsel and experts work together efficiently.

Step 1: Build a claim-to-artifact table

Make a table with columns:

  • Affidavit claim
  • Required artifact
  • Produced?
  • Notes / discrepancy

Keep it short. You want a document you can attach to a motion if needed.

Step 2: Have your expert issue-spot, not speculate

Your expert should focus on:

  • Inconsistencies between logs and claims
  • Missing artifacts that prevent verification
  • Time sync and time zone clarity

The expert should avoid global tool attacks. Courts tend to respond better to case-specific anomalies.

Step 3: Iterate discovery requests based on gaps

If you are missing one artifact that answers a key question, ask for that artifact. If you are missing everything, ask for the full run output package.

If you need a framing guide for building a record for broader tool discovery, see: Torrential Downpour source code discovery.

A final warning: avoid “one size fits all” discovery

Some cases hinge on attribution. Some hinge on completion. Some hinge on overstatement.

So, do not send the same discovery request packet in every case. Use the menu. Tie it to your case theory. That is how you keep disputes winnable.

Conclusion

A good discovery request Torrential Downpour logs strategy is simple. It asks for run-linked artifacts that prove what the government claims. It avoids broad RoundUp demands that invite broad objections.

If you want help building a discovery plan that is specific, testable, and expert-informed, Lucid Truth Technologies can help. Contact us using the LTT contact form: Contact.

References

[1] Cornell Law School, “Rule 16. Discovery and Inspection,” Legal Information Institute (LII), 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16

[2] Cornell Law School, “Brady rule,” Legal Information Institute (LII), 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule

Continue reading

This article is for informational purposes and does not provide legal advice. Every case turns on specific facts and controlling law in your jurisdiction. Work with qualified counsel and, where appropriate, a qualified expert.