More recent documents from the class action lawsuit against BitInstant show concerning things about the company. In particular, from the plaintiff’s attorneys:

“We represent Plaintiffs in the above referenced action. We write to request a status conference because this case has come to a halt; Defendant BitInstant is not engaging in discovery.

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on July 8, 2013. On September 9, 2013, Your Honor entered a case management plan, which required the Parties to exchange Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) discovery by November 4, 2013. To date, Defendant has not made its initial disclosures. Plaintiffs served document requests on November 14, 2013. To date, Defendant [BitInstant] has not responded. The Parties also have yet to discuss electronic discovery protocols. Defendant’s counsel has represented that she intends to file a motion to be relieved as counsel. However, that intention does not discharge Defendant of the responsibility to engage in this litigation. As such, Plaintiffs respectfully request a conference with the Court.”

Response from BitInstant’s counsel:

“On December 20, 2013, after Plaintiffs’ counsel filed his letter via ECF, we had another telephonic meet and confer to discuss the possibility of settlement given our client’s [BitInstant’s] financial condition. At that time, we confirmed that an insurance policy does not exist and that for several reasons, we intend to seek to withdraw as counsel in this litigation. However, in a final attempt to resolve this dispute in the interest of all parties, we agreed to assist in another settlement offer before seeking to withdraw as counsel. On December 30, 2013, we received that settlement offer from Plaintiffs’ counsel and conveyed it to our client [BitInstant]. We have informed our client [BitInstant] of the urgency of settlement in light of the discovery deadlines in this case, and we have advised our client that we intend to file a motion to withdraw.”

Letter to Judge McMahon

Withdrawal of Counsel