OVERVIEW
Nathaniel’s practice focuses on antitrust, consumer protection, financial services, and e-discovery. Nathaniel has litigated cases from inception through trial and appeal, and his work has contributed to the recovery of billions of dollars in compensation for the firm’s clients. Nathaniel is particularly well-versed in e-discovery issues and is an active member of The Sedona Conference’s Working Group on Electronic Document Retention and Production.
Clients
Nathaniel’s clients include businesses alleging antitrust violations in the financial, pharmaceutical, industrial, and agricultural markets; consumers alleging state and constitutional law violations by a private toll road operator; recording artists alleging underpayment of music royalties by their record labels; and local governments challenging the constitutionality of a federal law. Nathaniel has also defended corporate officers in commercial disputes.
EDUCATION
The George Washington University Law School, J.D., 2011
Michigan State University, James Madison College of Public Affairs, B.A., Political Theory and Constitutional Democracy, 2008
BAR ADMISSIONS
District of Columbia
Illinois
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
AFFILIATIONS
American Bar Association - Section of Antitrust Law, Member
George Washington Journal of Energy and Environmental Law (2010 - 2011)
The Sedona Conference, Working Group 1 (Electronic Document Retention and Production)
WHAT OTHERS SAY
American Antitrust Institute
- Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement by a Young Lawyer in 2020: an honor he received for his innovative contributions to the In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation case, in which Hausfeld serves as co-lead counsel.
Benchmark Litigation
- 40 & Under List since 2023
Super Lawyers
- Rising Star, Antitrust Litigation in Washington, DC since 2014
PUBLICATIONS
“The Sedona Conference Commentary on Privilege Logs,” (May 2024), Drafting Team Member
“The Sedona Conference Commentary on the Effective Use of Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) Orders,” (Aug. 2021), Drafting Team Leader
"The Sedona Conference Commentary on Rule 45 Subpoenas to Non-Parties," Second Edition (Oct. 2020), Drafting Team Member
"Hindsight Proportionality is an Illogical and Meaningless Idea," Law 360 (July 23, 2019), Co-Authored with Jeannine Kenney and Theodore DiSalvo
"Social Media and Antitrust: A Discovery Primer," Antitrust Magazine (Summer 2018), Co-Authored with Aaron Patton
“When One Door Closes, Does Another Open? The Second Circuit’s LIBOR Decision” (Lexology, Aug. 13, 2016)
Note, "Go Offshore Young Man! The Categorical Exclusion Solution to Offshore Wind Farm Development on the Outer Continental Shelf," 2 Geo. Wash. J. Energy & Envtl. L. 75 (2011), Author
"Proposal: A Uniform Act for Wind Rights," 8 A.B.A. Sec. Env’t Energy & Resources News (2011), Co-Authored with Laurie Ristino
EVENTS
- Panelist, Incorporating Data Security into the Discovery Process (Georgetown Advanced E-Discovery Institute, Nov. 18, 2022)
- Panelist, Hot Topics in eDiscovery – 2021 (Driven, Aug. 25, 2021)
- Panelist, Pleading and Defending Coordinated Conduct Claims (ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Feb. 26, 2021)
- Panelist, Fighting for Food Policy Progress Across Legal Arenas (Food Safety Summit, May 7, 2020)
- Panelist, Effective Use of Orders Under Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) (The Sedona Conference, Oct. 24, 2019)
- Panelist, Rule 45 and Nonparty Discovery (The Sedona Conference, Oct. 25, 2018)
PERSPECTIVES
EXPERIENCE
Antitrust/Competition
- In re Local TV Advertising Antitrust Litigation – Nathaniel represents a putative class of direct purchasers of broadcast television advertising. The class alleges that television broadcast station owners exchanged competitively sensitive information and fixed prices for broadcast television advertising in certain designated market areas in the United States, causing class members to pay higher prices for their advertisements.
- In re Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation – Nathaniel represents a class of direct (over-the-counter) purchasers of certain financial instruments linked to LIBOR. The class alleges that the banks setting this rate conspired with one another to suppress the LIBOR during the global financial crisis, which resulted in class members receiving less money on their investments.
- In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation – Nathaniel represents classes of consumers who purchased certain disposable contact lenses. The classes allege that the four leading contact lens manufacturers conspired among themselves and others to adopt, implement, and enforce resale price maintenance policies on these contact lenses, and as a result, that these contact lens wearers paid higher prices for their contact lenses.
- In re Foreign Exchange Benchmarks Rates Antitrust Litigation – Nathaniel represented market participants in the foreign exchange market against international banks alleged to have fixed the price of foreign exchange instruments.
- In re: Concrete and Cement Additives Antitrust Litigation – Nathaniel represents a class of direct purchasers of concrete and cement admixtures in a price fixing conspiracy MDL between the world’s largest manufacturers of concrete, cement, and mortar admixtures.
Commercial & Financial Disputes
- Niewinski v. State Farm Insurance – Nathaniel represents a class of purchasers of certain universal life insurance policies sold by State Farm. The class alleges that State Farm improperly computed its cost of insurance rates on these policies, causing the cash values of class members’ policies to be diminished.
- MTB Investment Partners, LP v. Siemens Hearing Instruments, Inc. – Nathaniel represented sellers of HearUSA stock who alleged that the defendant artificially depressed the price of the stock in order to acquire the company at below market price.
- Brown v. Transurban USA, Inc. – Nathaniel represented users of high-occupancy tolls lanes (so-called “HOT lanes”) in Virginia that were assessed significant fines without being provided with adequate notice from the private toll road operator.
E-Discovery
- Nathaniel is a member of The Sedona Conference, Working Group 1 (Electronic Document Retention and Production)
