{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce Law Center","value":734},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":null,"value":72},{"name":null,"value":26},{"name":null,"value":40},{"name":null,"value":27},{"name":null,"value":80},{"name":null,"value":28},{"name":null,"value":35},{"name":null,"value":10},{"name":null,"value":134},{"name":null,"value":121},{"name":null,"value":78},{"name":null,"value":29},{"name":null,"value":32},{"name":null,"value":31},{"name":null,"value":33},{"name":null,"value":126},{"name":"Immobilier","value":36},{"name":null,"value":82},{"name":null,"value":37},{"name":null,"value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":null,"value":1},{"name":null,"value":6},{"name":null,"value":71},{"name":null,"value":21},{"name":null,"value":23},{"name":null,"value":116},{"name":null,"value":24},{"name":null,"value":135},{"name":null,"value":25},{"name":null,"value":110},{"name":null,"value":20},{"name":null,"value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":null,"value":129},{"name":null,"value":2},{"name":null,"value":38},{"name":null,"value":3},{"name":null,"value":5},{"name":null,"value":19},{"name":null,"value":7},{"name":null,"value":4},{"name":null,"value":136},{"name":null,"value":13},{"name":null,"value":14},{"name":null,"value":15},{"name":null,"value":17},{"name":null,"value":18},{"name":null,"value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":null,"value":133},{"name":null,"value":106},{"name":null,"value":124},{"name":null,"value":111},{"name":null,"value":132},{"name":null,"value":131},{"name":null,"value":102},{"name":null,"value":125},{"name":null,"value":127},{"name":null,"value":107},{"name":null,"value":112},{"name":null,"value":105},{"name":null,"value":109},{"name":null,"value":103},{"name":null,"value":128},{"name":null,"value":123},{"name":null,"value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"7","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"A","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":427537,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":456,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eGreg Antine is an attorney with the firm\u0026rsquo;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.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGreg 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\u0026rsquo;s Office for the Southern District of New York, and various State Attorneys General.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGreg 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.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGreg 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.\u0026nbsp; He is admitted to practice in Georgia. He is a member of the State Bar of Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Sanctions for E-Discovery Violations: By the Numbers,\u0026rdquo; 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 \u003cem\u003eVictor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 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.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","slug":"gregory-antine","email":"gantine@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eManaging over 100 attorneys in the review of 960,000 documents and the preparation of a privilege log that included over 23,000 entries.\u0026nbsp; Managing and coordinating the collection of both electronic and hard copy documents from multiple client locations.\u0026nbsp; This review was in connection with a corporate acquisition in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege and significance.\u0026nbsp; The entire document review and privilege log was completed in less than one month in connection with a FTC 2nd request.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging over 40 attorneys in a review of over three million documents and production of over 900,000 documents for a \u003cem\u003eFortune\u003c/em\u003e 50 consumer products company.\u0026nbsp; This project was done in connection with a matter concerning intellectual property rights involving trade secrets and a breach of contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging the collection, review, and production of documents in complex multi-district litigation for a leading consumer products company in multiple product liability cases.\u0026nbsp; The document collection process required developing scope statements and conducting client and contractor interviews, along with the collection of physical documents and materials from multiple domestic and international locations.\u0026nbsp; The collection efforts were completed within 3 weeks, significantly minimizing business interruptions, resulting in the client being able to meet expedited discovery deadlines.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSupervising and managing over two hundred attorneys in multiple locations for a Federal Trade Commission Second Request in which over 1 million documents were reviewed and produced.\u0026nbsp; This review was in connection with a corporate acquisition in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege and significance.\u0026nbsp; The document review project was completed in less than six weeks despite being one of the largest document productions ever made in response to an FTC Second Request.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging 20 attorneys reviewing over 1 million documents for a leading medical device manufacturer in connection with a government investigation.\u0026nbsp; This matter involved a government investigation of anti-kickback regulations, in which documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege and significance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging and supervising 14 attorneys reviewing 412,000 documents for a defense contractor in connection with shareholder litigation.\u0026nbsp; This project involved reviewing documents for responsiveness, privilege, confidentiality and significance.\u0026nbsp; This matter also involved extensive early case assessment and key term searching, allowing the client to reduce the number of documents that had to be reviewed across multiple matters and jurisdictions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSupervising more than thirty attorneys in several locations in connection with a review of 600,000 electronic and paper documents for a leading transportation client.\u0026nbsp; This review was for a breach of contract matter in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege, significance, and confidentiality.\u0026nbsp; The document review project was completed in less than nine weeks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging multiple corporate contract due diligence projects involving both acquisitions and sales of business units.\u0026nbsp; Drafted summaries and created databases for corporate clients to help them manage extensive contract and client files.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging fifteen attorneys in connection with a review of 75,000 documents for a \u003cem\u003eFortune\u003c/em\u003e 50 energy client.\u0026nbsp; This review was in a royalty payments matter in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege, significance and confidentiality.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging fifteen attorneys in a review of 54,000 documents for a \u003cem\u003eFortune\u003c/em\u003e 50 pharmaceutical client.\u0026nbsp; This review was done in response to a congressional inquiry in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege, significance and confidentiality.\u0026nbsp; The document review project was completed in three weeks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLitigation Technology Experience: \u003c/strong\u003eExtensive experience in organizing discovery matters from their initial stages and has supervised document collections, managed review teams and coordinated document productions.\u0026nbsp; Due to Mr. Antine\u0026rsquo;s involvement in these projects, he has experience coordinating and supervising the selection of vendors.\u0026nbsp; He also has experience creating project plans and developing protocols for objective coding, imaging, scanning and printing.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Antine has extensive knowledge and experience of document review and litigation support systems including Relativity, Clearwell, Cataphora, Introspect, Stratify Legal Discovery, TCDI's Clarvergence, MetaLincs, Concordance, CaseCentral, I-Connect, FileControl, Ernst \u0026amp; Young\u0026rsquo;s Tree Review System and Microsoft Access.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Antine","nick_name":"Gregory","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Gregory","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"R.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":14,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eGreg Antine is an attorney with the firm\u0026rsquo;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.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGreg 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\u0026rsquo;s Office for the Southern District of New York, and various State Attorneys General.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGreg 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.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGreg 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.\u0026nbsp; He is admitted to practice in Georgia. He is a member of the State Bar of Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Sanctions for E-Discovery Violations: By the Numbers,\u0026rdquo; 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 \u003cem\u003eVictor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 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.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eManaging over 100 attorneys in the review of 960,000 documents and the preparation of a privilege log that included over 23,000 entries.\u0026nbsp; Managing and coordinating the collection of both electronic and hard copy documents from multiple client locations.\u0026nbsp; This review was in connection with a corporate acquisition in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege and significance.\u0026nbsp; The entire document review and privilege log was completed in less than one month in connection with a FTC 2nd request.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging over 40 attorneys in a review of over three million documents and production of over 900,000 documents for a \u003cem\u003eFortune\u003c/em\u003e 50 consumer products company.\u0026nbsp; This project was done in connection with a matter concerning intellectual property rights involving trade secrets and a breach of contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging the collection, review, and production of documents in complex multi-district litigation for a leading consumer products company in multiple product liability cases.\u0026nbsp; The document collection process required developing scope statements and conducting client and contractor interviews, along with the collection of physical documents and materials from multiple domestic and international locations.\u0026nbsp; The collection efforts were completed within 3 weeks, significantly minimizing business interruptions, resulting in the client being able to meet expedited discovery deadlines.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSupervising and managing over two hundred attorneys in multiple locations for a Federal Trade Commission Second Request in which over 1 million documents were reviewed and produced.\u0026nbsp; This review was in connection with a corporate acquisition in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege and significance.\u0026nbsp; The document review project was completed in less than six weeks despite being one of the largest document productions ever made in response to an FTC Second Request.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging 20 attorneys reviewing over 1 million documents for a leading medical device manufacturer in connection with a government investigation.\u0026nbsp; This matter involved a government investigation of anti-kickback regulations, in which documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege and significance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging and supervising 14 attorneys reviewing 412,000 documents for a defense contractor in connection with shareholder litigation.\u0026nbsp; This project involved reviewing documents for responsiveness, privilege, confidentiality and significance.\u0026nbsp; This matter also involved extensive early case assessment and key term searching, allowing the client to reduce the number of documents that had to be reviewed across multiple matters and jurisdictions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSupervising more than thirty attorneys in several locations in connection with a review of 600,000 electronic and paper documents for a leading transportation client.\u0026nbsp; This review was for a breach of contract matter in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege, significance, and confidentiality.\u0026nbsp; The document review project was completed in less than nine weeks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging multiple corporate contract due diligence projects involving both acquisitions and sales of business units.\u0026nbsp; Drafted summaries and created databases for corporate clients to help them manage extensive contract and client files.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging fifteen attorneys in connection with a review of 75,000 documents for a \u003cem\u003eFortune\u003c/em\u003e 50 energy client.\u0026nbsp; This review was in a royalty payments matter in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege, significance and confidentiality.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaging fifteen attorneys in a review of 54,000 documents for a \u003cem\u003eFortune\u003c/em\u003e 50 pharmaceutical client.\u0026nbsp; This review was done in response to a congressional inquiry in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege, significance and confidentiality.\u0026nbsp; The document review project was completed in three weeks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLitigation Technology Experience: \u003c/strong\u003eExtensive experience in organizing discovery matters from their initial stages and has supervised document collections, managed review teams and coordinated document productions.\u0026nbsp; Due to Mr. Antine\u0026rsquo;s involvement in these projects, he has experience coordinating and supervising the selection of vendors.\u0026nbsp; He also has experience creating project plans and developing protocols for objective coding, imaging, scanning and printing.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Antine has extensive knowledge and experience of document review and litigation support systems including Relativity, Clearwell, Cataphora, Introspect, Stratify Legal Discovery, TCDI's Clarvergence, MetaLincs, Concordance, CaseCentral, I-Connect, FileControl, Ernst \u0026amp; Young\u0026rsquo;s Tree Review System and Microsoft Access.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4539}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T05:01:48.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T05:01:48.000Z","searchable_text":"Antine{{ FIELD }}Managing over 100 attorneys in the review of 960,000 documents and the preparation of a privilege log that included over 23,000 entries.  Managing and coordinating the collection of both electronic and hard copy documents from multiple client locations.  This review was in connection with a corporate acquisition in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege and significance.  The entire document review and privilege log was completed in less than one month in connection with a FTC 2nd request. {{ FIELD }}Managing over 40 attorneys in a review of over three million documents and production of over 900,000 documents for a Fortune 50 consumer products company.  This project was done in connection with a matter concerning intellectual property rights involving trade secrets and a breach of contract.{{ FIELD }}Managing the collection, review, and production of documents in complex multi-district litigation for a leading consumer products company in multiple product liability cases.  The document collection process required developing scope statements and conducting client and contractor interviews, along with the collection of physical documents and materials from multiple domestic and international locations.  The collection efforts were completed within 3 weeks, significantly minimizing business interruptions, resulting in the client being able to meet expedited discovery deadlines.{{ FIELD }}Supervising and managing over two hundred attorneys in multiple locations for a Federal Trade Commission Second Request in which over 1 million documents were reviewed and produced.  This review was in connection with a corporate acquisition in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege and significance.  The document review project was completed in less than six weeks despite being one of the largest document productions ever made in response to an FTC Second Request.{{ FIELD }}Managing 20 attorneys reviewing over 1 million documents for a leading medical device manufacturer in connection with a government investigation.  This matter involved a government investigation of anti-kickback regulations, in which documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege and significance.{{ FIELD }}Managing and supervising 14 attorneys reviewing 412,000 documents for a defense contractor in connection with shareholder litigation.  This project involved reviewing documents for responsiveness, privilege, confidentiality and significance.  This matter also involved extensive early case assessment and key term searching, allowing the client to reduce the number of documents that had to be reviewed across multiple matters and jurisdictions.{{ FIELD }}Supervising more than thirty attorneys in several locations in connection with a review of 600,000 electronic and paper documents for a leading transportation client.  This review was for a breach of contract matter in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege, significance, and confidentiality.  The document review project was completed in less than nine weeks.{{ FIELD }}Managing multiple corporate contract due diligence projects involving both acquisitions and sales of business units.  Drafted summaries and created databases for corporate clients to help them manage extensive contract and client files.{{ FIELD }}Managing fifteen attorneys in connection with a review of 75,000 documents for a Fortune 50 energy client.  This review was in a royalty payments matter in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege, significance and confidentiality. {{ FIELD }}Managing fifteen attorneys in a review of 54,000 documents for a Fortune 50 pharmaceutical client.  This review was done in response to a congressional inquiry in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege, significance and confidentiality.  The document review project was completed in three weeks.{{ FIELD }}Litigation Technology Experience: Extensive experience in organizing discovery matters from their initial stages and has supervised document collections, managed review teams and coordinated document productions.  Due to Mr. Antine’s involvement in these projects, he has experience coordinating and supervising the selection of vendors.  He also has experience creating project plans and developing protocols for objective coding, imaging, scanning and printing.  Mr. Antine has extensive knowledge and experience of document review and litigation support systems including Relativity, Clearwell, Cataphora, Introspect, Stratify Legal Discovery, TCDI's Clarvergence, MetaLincs, Concordance, CaseCentral, I-Connect, FileControl, Ernst \u0026amp; Young’s Tree Review System and Microsoft Access.{{ FIELD }}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. \nGreg 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.\nGreg 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.\nGreg 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.\nPublications\n\n“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.\n Counsel University of Virginia University of Virginia School of Law Tulane University Tulane University Law School Georgia Managing over 100 attorneys in the review of 960,000 documents and the preparation of a privilege log that included over 23,000 entries.  Managing and coordinating the collection of both electronic and hard copy documents from multiple client locations.  This review was in connection with a corporate acquisition in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege and significance.  The entire document review and privilege log was completed in less than one month in connection with a FTC 2nd request.  Managing over 40 attorneys in a review of over three million documents and production of over 900,000 documents for a Fortune 50 consumer products company.  This project was done in connection with a matter concerning intellectual property rights involving trade secrets and a breach of contract. Managing the collection, review, and production of documents in complex multi-district litigation for a leading consumer products company in multiple product liability cases.  The document collection process required developing scope statements and conducting client and contractor interviews, along with the collection of physical documents and materials from multiple domestic and international locations.  The collection efforts were completed within 3 weeks, significantly minimizing business interruptions, resulting in the client being able to meet expedited discovery deadlines. Supervising and managing over two hundred attorneys in multiple locations for a Federal Trade Commission Second Request in which over 1 million documents were reviewed and produced.  This review was in connection with a corporate acquisition in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege and significance.  The document review project was completed in less than six weeks despite being one of the largest document productions ever made in response to an FTC Second Request. Managing 20 attorneys reviewing over 1 million documents for a leading medical device manufacturer in connection with a government investigation.  This matter involved a government investigation of anti-kickback regulations, in which documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege and significance. Managing and supervising 14 attorneys reviewing 412,000 documents for a defense contractor in connection with shareholder litigation.  This project involved reviewing documents for responsiveness, privilege, confidentiality and significance.  This matter also involved extensive early case assessment and key term searching, allowing the client to reduce the number of documents that had to be reviewed across multiple matters and jurisdictions. Supervising more than thirty attorneys in several locations in connection with a review of 600,000 electronic and paper documents for a leading transportation client.  This review was for a breach of contract matter in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege, significance, and confidentiality.  The document review project was completed in less than nine weeks. Managing multiple corporate contract due diligence projects involving both acquisitions and sales of business units.  Drafted summaries and created databases for corporate clients to help them manage extensive contract and client files. Managing fifteen attorneys in connection with a review of 75,000 documents for a Fortune 50 energy client.  This review was in a royalty payments matter in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege, significance and confidentiality.  Managing fifteen attorneys in a review of 54,000 documents for a Fortune 50 pharmaceutical client.  This review was done in response to a congressional inquiry in which the documents were reviewed for responsiveness, privilege, significance and confidentiality.  The document review project was completed in three weeks. Litigation Technology Experience: Extensive experience in organizing discovery matters from their initial stages and has supervised document collections, managed review teams and coordinated document productions.  Due to Mr. Antine’s involvement in these projects, he has experience coordinating and supervising the selection of vendors.  He also has experience creating project plans and developing protocols for objective coding, imaging, scanning and printing.  Mr. Antine has extensive knowledge and experience of document review and litigation support systems including Relativity, Clearwell, Cataphora, Introspect, Stratify Legal Discovery, TCDI's Clarvergence, MetaLincs, Concordance, CaseCentral, I-Connect, FileControl, Ernst \u0026amp; Young’s Tree Review System and Microsoft Access.","searchable_name":"Gregory R. Antine","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":427695,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1591,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJames Andrews is a lawyer with King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s E-Discovery Center. His focus is primarily on coordination and management of large-scale document reviews, productions, privilege logs and privilege challenges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJames\u0026nbsp;has developed particular expertise in navigating electronic discovery issues in product liability, health care, commercial and business litigation. He\u0026nbsp;has been involved in both individual cases and class actions pending in state and federal courts around the country.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecognition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePanelist with Judge Andrew J. Peck, Maura R. Grossman and Jessica Ross on Combining the Human Element of Document Review with Machine Learning Technology (2012).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","slug":"james-andrews","email":"jandrews@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eIdentifying, selecting and utilizing cutting edge review technology in multiple document review projects to efficiently manage the discovery process.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSupervising a team of attorneys responsible for responding to document requests served on a health care management company in connection with a \u003cem\u003eQui Tam\u003c/em\u003e action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading the review of documents on behalf of a health care provider in connection with a government subpoena.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading the review of documents and managing production of information on behalf of a health care provider in defense of a multi-state health care fraud claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading the review of documents, production of information, creation of privilege log and management of information in connection with deposition preparation on behalf of a financial services company in defense of a shareholder class action suit.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading the review of documents, production of information, creation of privilege log and management of information in connection with deposition preparation on behalf of an energy services provider bringing breach of contract and misappropriation claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLitigation Technology Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Andrews has extensive knowledge and experience of document review and litigation support applications, including Servient, Relativity, Ringtail, Introspect, Attenex, Concordance, IPro and CaseMap.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Andrews","nick_name":"James","clerkships":[],"first_name":"James","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"M.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":89,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJames Andrews is a lawyer with King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s E-Discovery Center. His focus is primarily on coordination and management of large-scale document reviews, productions, privilege logs and privilege challenges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJames\u0026nbsp;has developed particular expertise in navigating electronic discovery issues in product liability, health care, commercial and business litigation. He\u0026nbsp;has been involved in both individual cases and class actions pending in state and federal courts around the country.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecognition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePanelist with Judge Andrew J. Peck, Maura R. Grossman and Jessica Ross on Combining the Human Element of Document Review with Machine Learning Technology (2012).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eIdentifying, selecting and utilizing cutting edge review technology in multiple document review projects to efficiently manage the discovery process.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSupervising a team of attorneys responsible for responding to document requests served on a health care management company in connection with a \u003cem\u003eQui Tam\u003c/em\u003e action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading the review of documents on behalf of a health care provider in connection with a government subpoena.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading the review of documents and managing production of information on behalf of a health care provider in defense of a multi-state health care fraud claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading the review of documents, production of information, creation of privilege log and management of information in connection with deposition preparation on behalf of a financial services company in defense of a shareholder class action suit.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading the review of documents, production of information, creation of privilege log and management of information in connection with deposition preparation on behalf of an energy services provider bringing breach of contract and misappropriation claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLitigation Technology Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Andrews has extensive knowledge and experience of document review and litigation support applications, including Servient, Relativity, Ringtail, Introspect, Attenex, Concordance, IPro and CaseMap.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4181}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T05:03:50.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T05:03:50.000Z","searchable_text":"Andrews{{ FIELD }}Identifying, selecting and utilizing cutting edge review technology in multiple document review projects to efficiently manage the discovery process.{{ FIELD }}Supervising a team of attorneys responsible for responding to document requests served on a health care management company in connection with a Qui Tam action.{{ FIELD }}Leading the review of documents on behalf of a health care provider in connection with a government subpoena.{{ FIELD }}Leading the review of documents and managing production of information on behalf of a health care provider in defense of a multi-state health care fraud claim.{{ FIELD }}Leading the review of documents, production of information, creation of privilege log and management of information in connection with deposition preparation on behalf of a financial services company in defense of a shareholder class action suit. {{ FIELD }}Leading the review of documents, production of information, creation of privilege log and management of information in connection with deposition preparation on behalf of an energy services provider bringing breach of contract and misappropriation claims.{{ FIELD }}Litigation Technology Experience\nMr. Andrews has extensive knowledge and experience of document review and litigation support applications, including Servient, Relativity, Ringtail, Introspect, Attenex, Concordance, IPro and CaseMap.{{ FIELD }}James Andrews is a lawyer with King \u0026amp; Spalding’s E-Discovery Center. His focus is primarily on coordination and management of large-scale document reviews, productions, privilege logs and privilege challenges.\n\nJames has developed particular expertise in navigating electronic discovery issues in product liability, health care, commercial and business litigation. He has been involved in both individual cases and class actions pending in state and federal courts around the country.\nRecognition\n\nPanelist with Judge Andrew J. Peck, Maura R. Grossman and Jessica Ross on Combining the Human Element of Document Review with Machine Learning Technology (2012).\n Attorney Columbia University Columbia University School of Law Emory University Emory University School of Law Georgia Identifying, selecting and utilizing cutting edge review technology in multiple document review projects to efficiently manage the discovery process. Supervising a team of attorneys responsible for responding to document requests served on a health care management company in connection with a Qui Tam action. Leading the review of documents on behalf of a health care provider in connection with a government subpoena. Leading the review of documents and managing production of information on behalf of a health care provider in defense of a multi-state health care fraud claim. Leading the review of documents, production of information, creation of privilege log and management of information in connection with deposition preparation on behalf of a financial services company in defense of a shareholder class action suit.  Leading the review of documents, production of information, creation of privilege log and management of information in connection with deposition preparation on behalf of an energy services provider bringing breach of contract and misappropriation claims. Litigation Technology Experience\nMr. Andrews has extensive knowledge and experience of document review and litigation support applications, including Servient, Relativity, Ringtail, Introspect, Attenex, Concordance, IPro and CaseMap.","searchable_name":"James M. Andrews","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null}]}}