A federal consumer privacy class action against a major social media platform arose from allegations that the company had shared users' personal data with third parties without consent. The case involved hundreds of interconnected systems, millions of custodian documents, and petabytes of structured and unstructured data. Discovery had stalled: the parties could not agree on fundamental issues—privilege log formats, search-term construction, technology-assisted review validation protocols, and production specifications—and the volume of disputes threatened to derail the case entirely.
The court appointed a Law & Forensics principal to serve simultaneously as Special Master (for all discovery disputes) and mediator (for the underlying litigation).
The Challenge
Discovery at this scale is functionally a technology problem as much as a legal one. Search-term negotiations involving enterprise-wide data stores require someone who understands both custodian architecture and the legal standards for proportionality. TAR validation requires both statistical expertise and an understanding of what courts will accept as defensible. Privilege log disputes require someone fluent in the legal standards and in what metadata fields a platform of this complexity actually generates.
Typical discovery neutrals handle these matters one at a time. This engagement required managing them concurrently across hundreds of systems, with a class of plaintiffs on one side and a large technology organization on the other—each represented by sophisticated litigation teams.
What Law & Forensics Did
The Special Master established a structured ESI protocol governing all aspects of discovery: custodian identification, data source mapping, search-term development and testing, TAR model validation, privilege review workflows, and production format specifications. This protocol gave both sides predictable rules and eliminated the recurring friction of ad hoc disputes.
Over the course of the engagement, the Special Master issued dozens of written decisions resolving specific disputes—decisions that were published and became part of the case record. Topics addressed included contested privilege claims, disputes about TAR recall thresholds, disagreements about which data sources were subject to collection obligations, and production format deficiencies.
In parallel, the neutral's dual role as mediator provided a bridge between the discovery track and the merits track—allowing the same technical and legal insight that resolved discovery disputes to inform settlement negotiations, ultimately contributing to resolution of the underlying case.
Outcome
Every assigned discovery dispute was resolved through reasoned, published decisions. The ESI protocol the Special Master established became the operational backbone of the entire discovery program. The case resolved, with the neutral's involvement spanning both the discovery and mediation dimensions.
The engagement is a benchmark example of how a technically fluent legal neutral can transform intractable multi-party discovery into a manageable, cost-controlled process—and accelerate case resolution.
Related Practice Area
eDiscovery Services — ESI Preservation and Collection, ESI Processing and Hosting, Expert Testimony and Reporting, eDiscovery Consulting and Strategy
