Delgado v. Platforms

Background

Natalie Delgado brought a proposed class action under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. She alleges that Meta Platforms, Inc. created, collected, received, stored, or otherwise obtained her voiceprint and related biometric information through Facebook and Messenger. The court had authorized an early summary judgment motion concerning whether data Meta collected from Delgado qualifies as a “voiceprint” under the Act.

Delgado served an expert report by Dr. Rita Singh on October 23, 2025. Meta then moved to disqualify Singh based on contacts she had with Meta’s outside counsel, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, in March and June 2024. Meta’s counsel said the discussions included allegations, Meta’s factual investigation, anticipated arguments, defenses, litigation strategies, and counsel’s views about the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ cases. Singh described the first discussion as general and nonspecific and said that counsel did not discuss litigation strategies, legal theories, defenses, or expert arguments.

Meta and Singh never entered into a retainer or confidentiality agreement, Meta did not pay Singh, and Meta did not provide her with written work product. Singh later told Meta’s counsel that she was an expert on the opposing side in two other biometric-privacy cases, including one involving Apple. Meta ultimately retained a different testifying expert. Delgado’s counsel first contacted Singh in February 2025 and entered into a retention agreement with her in early March 2025.

Legal Standard

Federal courts have inherent authority to disqualify expert witnesses to protect the fairness and integrity of the adversarial process, protect confidential information, and maintain public confidence in the legal system. Courts generally consider whether the party seeking disqualification had a confidential relationship with the expert and whether it disclosed confidential information relevant to the current litigation. The party seeking disqualification bears the burden of showing that disqualification is warranted. Courts also consider fairness, prejudice, and related policy concerns.

Analysis

The court held that Meta had not shown that it reasonably believed it had a confidential relationship with Singh. The court emphasized that Meta had no retainer or confidentiality agreement with her, did not tell her that it was preparing an agreement or planned to retain her, did not pay her, did not provide written work product, and did not label communications privileged or confidential. The court also noted that the first call lasted about 30 minutes, the second call was expected to last about 15 minutes, and substantial time passed between the calls. When counsel later contacted Singh, she asked which case they were discussing, suggesting that she was not aware of an established expert relationship.

Because Meta failed to establish a confidential relationship, the court did not need to decide whether Meta had disclosed relevant confidential information. Nevertheless, after reviewing Gibson Dunn’s March 21, 2024 meeting notes and supporting declaration privately, the court concluded that the information discussed did not include specific and unambiguous disclosures that would prejudice Meta if revealed. The court observed that the case’s prior motion-to-dismiss litigation, answer, and substantial discovery had already put Delgado on notice of Meta’s defenses.

The court also found that fairness and policy considerations weighed against disqualification. Discovery had been open for about two years, and Meta’s early summary judgment motion was due within a few months. Disqualifying Singh at that stage would significantly burden Delgado. The court credited Delgado’s position that replacing Singh would be difficult because of the technical complexity of voice biometrics and the potential conflicts affecting other experts. The court also found that Meta had not followed up after Singh promptly disclosed her work for the opposing side in other biometric-privacy cases.

Disposition

The court DENIED Meta’s motion to disqualify Delgado’s expert, Dr. Rita Singh. The court also DENIED Delgado’s motion for reconsideration of the order granting Meta’s request to seal materials. Under the parties’ agreement, Meta was required to serve its expert report within 14 days, and the parties were given until December 2, 2025, to jointly file a proposed amended schedule.