Daniel B. Garrie
Menu

JAMS Neutral · SIAC Panel · Stipulated into AAA Matters

Technology, AI & Cybersecurity Arbitration

Daniel B. Garrie has served as a neutral — mediator, arbitrator, and discovery referee — in 1,000+ disputes over the past 20 years. He sits as arbitrator in technology, AI, and cybersecurity matters: cases where the evidence is code, logs, and forensic artifacts, and where the arbitrator's ability to read that record directly shapes the entire proceeding.

01 — Practice Scope

Technology, AI & cyber disputes

  • AI-driven disputes — model behavior, training data, output liability, governance
  • Cybersecurity incidents, data breach & ransomware
  • Privacy, GDPR, CCPA, and regulatory exposure
  • E-discovery disputes & digital forensics
  • Software, SaaS, and source-code disputes
  • Trade secrets & misappropriation of technical IP
  • Cloud, infrastructure, and platform disputes
  • Cyber-insurance coverage disputes

Why it matters here

“As an arbitrator, I am able to hear arguments and objectively look at the facts, similar to looking at 1's and 0's, and apply the law without ever forgetting the importance of efficiency of time and money.”
Daniel B. Garrie

02 — Why This Matters in Arbitration

Four reasons technical fluency changes the outcome.

  • Technical fluencyReads code, logs, forensicsThe native lens for cyber, AI, source-code, and trade-secret matters
  • Arbitration practice200+ as sole or tri-panelJAMS · SIAC · LCIA · HKIAC · CPR · AAA by stipulation · AAA-ICDR
  • Adjudicative discipline100+ court appointmentsIncluding In re: Facebook & Powers v. McDonough
  • Practitioner-arbitratorStill leads investigationsFounder, Law & Forensics — current in the technology and forensic practice parties bring to the seat

Technical fluency is not an add-on in technology arbitration — it is the prerequisite. An arbitrator who reads source code, parses server logs, and evaluates forensic artifacts directly can weigh competing expert testimony against the record itself, and reach the core facts of the dispute with independent judgment. Daniel reads that evidence natively.

That native lens carries through every phase — pre-hearing orders, evidentiary rulings, and an award that reflects a decision-maker who evaluated the technical record on its merits.

03 — Selected Matters

Where Daniel has sat.

A representative cross-section of matters drawn from Daniel's record as arbitrator and technical neutral. Where confidentiality applies, parties and case captions are generalized; only public-record matters are named.

  1. JAMS arbitration · Forensic-neutral engagement

    IV Solutions v. Aetna, Inc.

    JAMS Case No. 1200055122

    Created a forensic discovery protocol, executed it, and delivered a report and recommendation to the arbitrator within forty-five days.

    Repositories
    50+
    Files processed
    15M+
    Window
    45 days
  2. Sole arbitrator · Cyber liability

    Client v. law firm — data-breach arbitration

    Confidential professional-services dispute

    Arbitrator in a data-breach dispute in which a client sued its law firm following a targeted cyberattack that resulted in a leak of client data. Required forensic root-cause analysis and a standard-of-care assessment.

    Theory
    Cyber liability
    Sector
    Professional services
    Role
    Sole arbitrator
  3. Arbitrator · Trade-secret / source-code

    Software code-theft arbitration

    Confidential — multiple matters

    Arbitrator in matters involving alleged unauthorized copying of source code. Direct review of code differences and version-control history produced focused issue-identification and accelerated resolution.

    Subject
    Source code
    Theory
    Trade secret
    Role
    Arbitrator

When the parties are ready

Consent Daniel in. Begin with Sonya.

Once both sides have agreed in principle, Sonya Morgan coordinates Daniel's availability, runs the conflicts check, and shares the engagement materials. Most counsel are arbitrator-confirmed within two business days.