The impact of fact intelligence on 4 key cases
Litigation often turns on the facts: what happened, when, and who knew. Today, those facts are often scattered across millions of documents in inboxes, servers, and archives.
When key information surfaces late, the cost is not merely hours, but can be the difference between winning and losing. The issue isn’t the ability of lawyers, but the scale and resources required. Even the best teams can’t track every fact across their matter, and it is even more difficult to recall them at any point and identify inconsistencies.
Wexler turns files into structured, traceable evidence, helping litigators see every fact from day one, not after disclosure or court intervention.
Across the US, there are countless cases where that would have mattered. In this article, we highlight four of them.
- Facebook, Inc. Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation (N.D. Cal., 2023)
This multidistrict litigation arose from the Cambridge Analytica fallout. It focused on Facebook’s handling of user data and internal investigations.
In February 2023, Judge Vince Chhabria issued a sanctions order after prolonged discovery friction, including failures tied to production from Facebook’s “App Developer Investigation”. The court criticized Facebook’s discovery conduct, required completion of ADI-related production on a compressed timeline, and invited plaintiffs to seek sanctions given repeated delays.
The court order tightened deadlines, expanded required disclosures, and increased pressure on Meta’s counsel, publicly spotlighting discovery lapses and increasing litigation risk.
Applying Wexler:
Once the available datasets were uploaded, Wexler could have shown that ADI materials referenced throughout the record weren’t represented in the uploads. It would have cross-referenced correspondence, interview notes, and ADI work product, flagging the omission early and prompting targeted collection and timely production.
A single, verified view of the documents would likely have headed-off the court’s intervention, reduced sanctions exposure, and kept the schedule on counsel’s terms rather than the court’s.
- Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (N.D. Cal., 2018)
This was a wage and hour class action alleging that Wal-Mart failed to compensate employees for off-the-clock work. Discovery spanned millions of employee records across regional HR systems.
Wal-Mart produced over 300,000 productivity reports and hundreds of hours of video after the discovery deadline. The information had always existed, but it wasn’t identified and produced on time. The court excluded the late-produced evidence and the expert reports that relied on it, sharply limiting Wal-Mart’s ability to contest the claims.
The case later settled on confidential terms, but commentators noted that the evidentiary exclusion substantially weakened Wal-Mart’s litigation position.
What Wexler would have changed:
Once the available documents were uploaded, Wexler could have been used to show which custodians, regions, or systems were under-represented. It would have prompted counsel to verify whether additional data sources, such as the performance-report archives and video files, needed to be collected and uploaded.
- Waymo v. Uber (N.D. Cal., 2017–2018)
Waymo, Google’s self-driving car subsidiary, sued Uber for theft of trade secrets following its acquisition of Otto, a start-up founded by a former Waymo engineer. The case centred on the alleged transfer of LiDAR technology and confidential design files.
In mid-2017, Judge Alsup ordered Uber to produce the Stroz Friedberg due-diligence report and underlying archive: tens of thousands of files from Otto’s acquisition review. The materials were known to exist but hadn’t been included in Uber’s main discovery workflow. Their late production triggered intense scrutiny from the court and Waymo’s counsel, contributing to a postponement of the trial originally scheduled for October 2017.
Uber later settled with Waymo in February 2018 for $245 million in equity, ending the case before testimony began. The settlement followed weeks of damaging publicity about Uber’s discovery practices.
What Wexler would have changed:
Wexler would have surfaced cross-references to the Stroz Friedberg materials across correspondence and disclosure, showing that key files weren’t part of the uploaded evidence.
Counsel would have confirmed and integrated the missing archive months earlier, maintaining procedural credibility and avoiding judicial intervention.
- Apple v. Samsung (N.D. Cal., 2012)
Apple sued Samsung for patent and design infringement related to smartphones and tablets in one of the largest intellectual property disputes in modern history.
Samsung produced key source code and design documents after the discovery deadline. The court sanctioned Samsung, barred reliance on the late evidence, and criticised its discovery management.
Apple initially won $1.05 billion in damages, later reduced but reaffirmed after multiple appeals. Discovery lapses undermined Samsung’s defence and contributed to its weakened position during settlement negotiations.
What Wexler would have changed:
Wexler would have detected references to unuploaded repositories in internal correspondence and technical documents. That signal would have shown counsel where data gaps existed before discovery closed.
Using Wexler, Samsung could have identified and produced the missing documents on time, preserving its full technical defence and avoiding sanctions.
The pattern
In each of these cases, the documents existed and the lawyers were capable of assessing the relevance of the facts, but couldn’t keep up with the volume of documents.
Modern litigation generates evidence at a scale that exceeds the limits of human coordination and traditional document management. Email chains, attachments, archives, and mixed formats mean the decisive record can be technically present but practically invisible. The result is losses that happen not because the facts are wrong, but because they’re late.
That’s what Wexler is built to prevent.
Wexler turns disclosure material into structured, traceable facts, showing what happened, when, and who was involved. It helps litigators test narratives, surface contradictions, and find what’s missing while there’s still time to act.
Our platform ingests documents, from correspondence to filings to exhibits to archives, and turns them into structured, traceable data. It shows you what’s missing before it becomes a problem. After all, facts only matter if you find them.
Contact us to see how Wexler can help you find every fact.