When the Cambridge Analytica revelations produced a consolidated consumer privacy class action against Facebook — In re Facebook, Inc., Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation, MDL No. 2843 before Judge Vince Chhabria in the Northern District of California — discovery became its own battlefield. The plaintiffs alleged that users' personal data had been shared with third parties without consent; proving or disproving that meant discovery into the data architecture of one of the world's largest platforms.
The parties could not agree on the fundamentals: which data sources were within the company's possession, custody, or control; how privilege would be logged at scale; how technology-assisted review would be validated; what a defensible production even looked like for systems that were never designed to answer litigation questions.
Why it was difficult
Discovery at this scale is a technology problem wearing a legal costume. Deciding whether a data source is discoverable requires understanding what the system actually stores and how it can be queried — before any proportionality argument can be honest. TAR validation turns on statistics; privilege logging turns on what metadata the platform actually generates. A traditional discovery referee reaches these questions one at a time. This matter required all of them at once, continuously, between parties with every incentive to fight each one.
The firm's role
The court turned to a Law & Forensics principal, Daniel B. Garrie, who served through JAMS in two capacities of record — special master and mediator (JAMS Case Nos. 1200058674 and 1200058189) — part of the firm's broader record of court and arbitral appointments.
The dual structure mattered. As special master, he resolved discovery disputes through reasoned written decisions. As mediator, he could carry the technical understanding those disputes produced directly into resolution discussions — the same neutral who knew what the data showed was in the room when the parties discussed what the case was worth.
Evidence and method
The engagement's backbone was a structured ESI protocol governing custodian identification, data-source mapping, search-term development and testing, TAR validation, privilege workflows, and production specifications. Predictable rules replaced ad hoc skirmishes; written decisions resolved the disputes the rules could not prevent, and became part of the case record.
This is the working method the firm brings to special master and neutral engagements generally: treat the discovery program as an engineering problem with legal constraints, decide it in writing, and leave a record either side can take to the judge.
Impact
The underlying MDL resolved in a $725 million settlement — among the largest privacy class-action recoveries in U.S. history. The discovery program that made resolution possible ran under the protocol and decisions of the firm's neutral.
The expert dimension
Everything a special master decides in a matter like this is subject to objection before the district judge — every written decision is, functionally, an opinion that must survive review by the court and attack by two well-resourced litigation teams. That is the standard the firm's work is built for, whether serving as a neutral or as a testifying expert: findings written to be checked.
Related capabilities
Special Master & Neutral Services · eDiscovery Services · Court & Arbitral Appointments · Daniel B. Garrie
