I am confused. This article says:
"(Judge) Stephens hinted at the possibility that the cellphone may have belonged to a third party, and cited privacy issues in denying Osborn's request for the time being."
The judge also agreed with District Attorney Michael Nifong's argument that experts in his office were equally capable of protecting the integrity of the evidence and said he would review the data obtained from the phone before deciding whether it had any evidentiary value."
http://www.courttv.com/news/duke-rape/051806_seligmann_ctv.html
Greta described something totally different
I think they actually decided to look at the data in the judge's chambers with both sides present.
The article is closer to correct.. I don't know what Greta said, but the Judge said for the two attorneys to get their experts together to obtain the information from the phone and bring it to him... He would then look at it in chambers and decide which of the stuff would be admitted...
It was the judge that brought up the 3rd party ownership...