- Expands the narrative map: A professional investigation can chart origin points, republication paths, and supposed motive or coordination—facts plaintiffs can use to argue actual malice and damages.
- Opens discovery doors: The more central the PI findings are, the more defensible it is for plaintiffs to use discovery to demand the underlying materials, communications, and methodologies—with appropriate privilege fights.
Resource disparity is real—so for Candace Owens, discovery is everything
The Macrons have effectively unlimited resources; Owens does not. That asymmetry isn’t just optics—it drives case tempo. The more hours and vendors the plaintiffs can afford, the faster they can pressure a smaller defense team into costly motions and depositions. That’s why targeted, high-yield discovery—especially third-party discovery—maybe Owens’ most realistic route to leverage.
What that looks like in practice (defense-side playbook):
- Third-party subpoenas to Nardello & Co. for: scopes of work, investigator assignments, chain-of-custody logs, communications with plaintiffs’ counsel, media, government, or foreign actors; interview notes; source payments; and any protocols regarding authentication. (Expect privilege/work-product objections; tailor requests and be prepared to litigate privilege logs.)
- Depositions of a 30(b)(6)-style designee (Delaware Superior Court analog) from Nardello on methodologies, validation, and error-checking; and of key investigators on specific sourcing.
- Spoliation & preservation inquiries: When did hold notices issue? What platforms and devices were imaged? Any ephemeral messaging?
- Bias & motive probes: Engagement pitch decks, fees, success metrics, and any parallel PR coordination can reveal narrative shaping, not just fact-finding.
Where PIs can cross legal or ethical lines—and why that matters to discovery
Private investigators are not law enforcement; they can (and often do) use pretext in some contexts. But certain lines are bright red: