Greg Antine is an attorney with the firm’s E-Discovery practice. His practice focuses on electronic discovery issues, particularly with respect to the representation of banking, healthcare, medical device, automotive, energy and consumer products clients in government investigations and complex litigation. Greg has managed discovery for a wide variety of clients and advises them on developing defensible, cost-effective strategies tailored to the needs of each matter, from early case assessment through document review and production.
Greg has significant experience managing e-discovery that spans industries such as product liabilities, securities, environmental issues and mass torts, as well as high-stakes governmental and internal investigations initiated by agencies including the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ),the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the U.S., Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, and various State Attorneys General.
Greg works with case teams and clients at developing defensible, cost-effective discovery strategies tailored to the specific needs of each matter, from early case assessment through document review and production. He works closely with in-house counsel, co-counsel, technology service providers and vendor partners to ensure consistency, efficiency and quality across all phases of the discovery lifecycle.
Greg received his J.D. from Tulane Law School, graduating, cum laude, in 2001. He graduated from the University of Virginia with a B.A. in both history and government in 1998. He is admitted to practice in Georgia. He is a member of the State Bar of Georgia.
Publications
- “Sanctions for E-Discovery Violations: By the Numbers,” co-author with Dan H. Willoughby, Jr. and Rose Hunter Jones, Duke Law Journal, Volume 60, Number 3 (December 2010), surveying 400 federal court opinions involving motions for sanctions relating to the discovery of electronically stored information and analyzed for date, court, type of case, sanctioning authority, sanctioned party, sanctioned misconduct, sanction type, sanctions to counsel and protections provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e). The article was cited by Magistrate Judge Grimm in Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 250 FRD 251 (D. Md. 2010) as evidence of the lack of uniform national standards governing the duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence, the level of culpability needed to justify sanctions, and the appropriate sanctions for varying levels of misconduct.
