In the world of civil litigation—especially cases involving commercial vehicle crashes—cell phone evidence can make or break a case. Attorneys are increasingly relying on digital forensics to reconstruct events, establish timelines, and determine liability. However, not all cell phone records are created equal. Two of the most commonly requested types of records are billing records and Call Detail Records (CDRs). While both can provide valuable information, they have distinct limitations that can impact their usefulness as evidence.
A recent poll asked attorneys and investigators:
“Which of the following do you consider the most significant limitation of billing records versus CDRs when used as evidence in litigation?”
- Lack of location information.
- No call attempts/failed calls.
- No text message metadata.
- Less reliable times.
All of these answers are true under certain circumstances. In this article, we’ll break down each limitation, explain why it matters in the context of civil litigation—especially commercial vehicle crashes—and offer practical guidance for attorneys seeking the strongest possible evidence.
1. Billing Records Lack Location Information
One of the most critical differences between billing records and CDRs is the presence—or absence—of location data. Billing records are primarily designed for accounting purposes. They show which calls and texts were billed to the account, but they do not include information about where the phone was when the activity occurred.
CDRs, on the other hand, often include cell site data. This means that for each call, text, or data session, the record may show which cell tower the phone connected to. In commercial vehicle crash litigation, this can be a game-changer. Location data can help:
- Place a driver at or near the scene of a crash.
- Corroborate or contradict witness statements about a driver’s whereabouts.
- Establish whether a driver was using their phone while operating a commercial vehicle.
For example, if a trucking company claims their driver was miles away from the crash site at the time of the incident, CDRs with cell site data can confirm or refute that claim. Billing records alone would not provide this level of detail.
2. Billing Records Do Not Show All Call Attempts or Failed Calls
Another significant limitation of billing records is that they typically only show completed, billable events. This means that if someone attempted to make a call but the call did not connect—or if a call was dropped before it was billed—those events may not appear in the billing records.
CDRs are much more comprehensive. They often log all call attempts, including those that failed or were never connected. This can be crucial in litigation, especially when reconstructing the moments leading up to a commercial vehicle crash. For example:
- If a driver attempted to make a call seconds before a crash, that attempt might not show up in billing records, but it could be present in the CDRs.
- Missed or dropped calls can help establish distraction or intent, which may be relevant for liability or damages.
In cases where the timing and sequence of phone activity are under scrutiny, relying solely on billing records can leave significant gaps in the evidence.
3. Billing Records May Omit Text Message Metadata
Text messages are a common focus in commercial vehicle crash litigation, especially when distracted driving is suspected. However, billing records often only show text messages that are billable—typically those sent to or from other carriers, or those that incur a charge. They may not include:
- Messages sent over Wi-Fi or data (such as iMessages or WhatsApp).
- Messages that are not billable under the user’s plan.
- Metadata such as timestamps, recipient numbers, or delivery status.
CDRs can provide a more complete picture. They may include metadata for all text messages, regardless of billing status, and can sometimes even show the content of messages (though this is rare and usually requires a separate warrant or subpoena).
For attorneys, this means that relying on billing records alone could result in missing key evidence. For example, if a driver was texting at the time of a crash but the messages were sent via a non-billable service, billing records would not reflect this activity. CDRs, or even a forensic extraction of the device, may be necessary to uncover the full story.
Billing Records Are Less Reliable for Establishing Timelines
In civil litigation, timing is everything. Establishing a precise timeline of events can be the difference between winning and losing a case. Billing records, however, are not always reliable for this purpose. Here’s why:
- Billing records may only show the time a call or text was billed, not the exact time it was initiated or received.
- There can be delays between when an event occurs and when it is processed for billing.
- Some records may be rounded to the nearest minute, losing valuable seconds that could be critical in reconstructing events.
CDRs are generally much more precise. They log the exact time of each event, often down to the second. This level of detail is essential in commercial vehicle crash cases, where attorneys may need to:
- Pinpoint the exact moment a driver was distracted.
- Correlate phone activity with GPS data, dashcam footage, or other evidence.
- Challenge or support expert testimony about the sequence of events.
For example, if a crash occurred at 2:17:43 PM, but the billing record only shows a call at 2:17 PM, it’s impossible to know whether the call was ongoing at the time of the crash. CDRs can provide the granularity needed to answer these questions definitively.
Practical Guidance for Attorneys: Best Practices in Requesting and Using Cell Phone Records
Given these limitations, what should attorneys do to ensure they are getting the most useful evidence in commercial vehicle crash litigation?
1. Always Request CDRs, Not Just Billing Records:
When issuing subpoenas or discovery requests, be specific. Ask for Call Detail Records, including cell site/location data, all call attempts (including failed or incomplete calls), and comprehensive text message metadata.
2. Consider a Forensic Extraction:
In some cases, especially when app-based messaging or deleted data is suspected, a forensic extraction of the device itself may be necessary. This can reveal information not available in either billing records or CDRs.
3. Work with Digital Forensics Experts:
Interpreting cell phone records can be complex. Partnering with a digital forensics expert ensures that you understand what the records do—and do not—show, and that you can explain these nuances to the court.
4. Educate the Court and Opposing Counsel:
Many judges and attorneys are not familiar with the technical differences between billing records and CDRs. Be prepared to explain why certain records are more reliable or complete, and why missing data can impact the case.
5. Preserve Evidence Early:
Cell phone records are often only retained by carriers for a limited time. Act quickly to preserve evidence, and consider sending preservation letters as soon as litigation is anticipated.
Conclusion: The Right Records Make All the Difference
In commercial vehicle crash litigation, the details matter.
Understanding the limitations of billing records versus CDRs can help attorneys
build stronger cases, avoid evidentiary pitfalls, and ultimately achieve better
outcomes for their clients. While billing records can provide a useful
overview, they are no substitute for the depth and precision of CDRs—especially
when location, call attempts, text metadata, and precise timelines are at
stake.
By knowing what to ask for and how to interpret the data,
attorneys can leverage digital forensics to uncover the truth and deliver
justice in even the most complex civil litigation cases.
Feel free to contact me with any questions at ben@braveinvestigations.com.