What specific documents and machine logs have been requested in Rockland County discovery?

1. What the request package looks like — breadth and form

The initial filing is described as fifteen pages of document requests and interrogatories that the plaintiffs served on the county board; the court directed discovery to proceed after a May hearing, and compliance and deposition work is contemplated in future conferences ^[1][2][4]. Multiple news outlets and the plaintiffs’ organization characterize the requests as comprehensive, seeking both documentary records and machine‑level artifacts so the plaintiffs can compare “trusted build” artifacts to what actually ran on election equipment ^[3][5].

2. Software and “trusted build” artifacts specifically demanded

A central element of the discovery asks for the trusted‑build software and the software images currently running on Rockland County voting machines so plaintiffs can perform a side‑by‑side comparison; plaintiffs frame this as necessary to test whether machines were running authorized code ^[2][5][6]. Newsweek and other outlets repeat that the requests look for the county’s voting‑system software, and the New York State Board of Elections’ escrow practices are flagged as relevant background to those software requests ^[1][4].

3. Machine logs and connectivity records: modems, Wi‑Fi, cellular, and novel networks

The discovery explicitly asks about modem, Wi‑Fi, or cellular connections to the county’s election systems and requests records relating to whether services such as Starlink’s Direct‑to‑Cell or third‑party services like Ballotproof were used, with plaintiffs seeking connection logs and related documentation to determine any remote connectivity during the election period ^[2][5][6]. Reporting indicates plaintiffs want machine‑level evidence of any external network access — the precise form (e.g., system event logs, network device logs, or firewall records) is described in general terms in the filings and media reports rather than shown verbatim in the coverage ^[2][4].

4. Hardware inventories, password protocols and chain‑of‑custody

The requests include hardware inventories and questions about operational security: who had passwords, inspector practices (including an allegation that inspectors took voting‑machine passwords home after orientation), and county password protocols for election equipment ^[3]. Plaintiffs also press on physical custody and chain‑of‑custody documentation for machines and any escrow arrangements for software, signaling interest in both physical and administrative controls ^[3][4].

5. Incident reports, audits and investigatory records sought

Plaintiffs are asking for records of any reported irregularities and any investigations the county or state conducted after the 2024 election, along with audit results and other contemporaneous reports that could corroborate or rebut their claims; the filings also seek communications and internal memos that touch on discrepancies between county and state tallies ^[2][7]. SMART’s public statements emphasize differences between county and state results and frame these documents as central to proving their recount claim ^[3][7].

6. Limits of available reporting and competing narratives

Public reporting summarizes the requests but does not publish the full 15‑page document list verbatim in the cited pieces, so the precise file names, time ranges, and technical log formats requested are not fully visible in the coverage; county officials have moved to dismiss and seek a stay of discovery and have characterized the suit as without merit, creating an adversarial frame that every outlet reports ^[1][2]. Verified Voting and cybersecurity experts cited in coverage caution against leaping from requests for logs and software to conclusions about fraud, noting that some alleged technical signatures have alternative explanations and that Rockland uses non‑Dominion equipment — details that complicate any simple interpretation of what logs would show ^[8].