DG

Daniel B. Garrie, Esq.

eDiscovery Expert Witness · Special Master

Request full CVRetain the expert

Credibility that survives cross-examination.

Daniel B. Garrie, Esq. is a court-tested eDiscovery expert witness and court-appointed eDiscovery Special Master with more than 20 years in computer forensics and electronic discovery. He is the Founder and Managing Partner of Law & Forensics LLC (est. 2008) and has been a JAMS neutral since 2016.

He has served as an eDiscovery expert, discovery referee, and special master in more than 100 state and federal courts, administrative proceedings, and arbitrations nationwide — covering ESI collection defensibility, spoliation and sanctions analysis, proportionality, technology-assisted review validation, and expert reports and testimony written to survive a Rule 702 challenge.

The combination is the point. A B.A. and M.A. in Computer Science from Brandeis and a J.D. from Rutgers mean an assertion about what a system did gets tested rather than accepted, and the resulting opinion is written in terms a judge and jury can act on. He has trained hundreds of federal and state judges, CISOs, and general counsel on exactly that translation problem.

The objective is always the same: a reasonable, well-documented process, explained plainly, that holds up when the other side attacks it.

This site is the eDiscovery expert-witness practice of Law & Forensics LLC. It covers one subspecialty in depth — eDiscovery, ESI protocols, spoliation and sanctions, technology-assisted review validation, and special master engagements. The firm’s broader cybersecurity, incident response, and digital forensics work is described on the main firm site.

Bar admissions
New York (2007) · Washington (2012) · U.S. Supreme Court
Education
B.A. and M.A., Computer Science, Brandeis · J.D., Rutgers Law
Neutral
JAMS neutral since 2016
Faculty
Adjunct Professor, Harvard University

Roles and appointments

eDiscovery Special Master

Appointed in federal and state courts nationwide, including as eDiscovery Special Master for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Discovery Referee

Retained and appointed across Washington, California, New York, Illinois, Florida, and Nevada on disputes spanning mobile devices, cloud platforms, enterprise systems, medical devices, vehicles, and IoT.

Arbitral and ADR neutral

JAMS neutral since 2016; Distinguished Neutral with the Academy of Court Appointed Masters and the CPR Institute.

Expert witness

Expert reports, rebuttals, deposition, and trial testimony on ESI defensibility, spoliation, proportionality, TAR validation, and cybersecurity negligence.

Engagement descriptions are generalized and omit party names and matter-identifying detail. A full CV and testimony list is available on request.

Standards work

The authorities an eDiscovery opinion rests on are written by working groups. Participating in them is how a methodology stays current with what courts actually expect.

  • The Sedona Conference — Working Group 1 (Electronic Document Retention & Production)
  • The Sedona Conference — Working Group 6 (International Electronic Information Management)
  • 7th Circuit eDiscovery Pilot Program
  • Academy of Court Appointed Masters — Distinguished Neutral
  • CPR Institute — Distinguished Neutral

Publications and teaching

Dispute Resolution and eDiscovery

Thomson Reuters — treatise on resolving discovery disputes involving ESI.

Federal Judicial Center guide for judges

Authored the FJC's guide for the federal judiciary on software, the internet, mobile computing, and the cloud.

400+ articles and publications

Cited in more than 500 articles and judicial opinions, and recognized by several U.S. Supreme Court Justices.

600+ seminars worldwide

Training delivered to hundreds of federal and state judges, CISOs, and general counsel.

He is also a co-inventor of multiple cybersecurity patents and has held adjunct faculty appointments at Cardozo, Rutgers, and the University of Connecticut.

Vetting an expert for a matter with an ESI fight?

Send the matter name, jurisdiction, and key dates for a prompt conflict check — or read how the engagements are actually run.