David Griffith
Overview
David Griffith is a counsel in Crowell & Moring’s Orange County and Los Angeles offices and is a member of the firm’s Antitrust and Competition Group. David represents clients on a wide range of issues, including price-fixing, monopolization, market-allocation, and FCPA compliance. David’s practice also focuses on counseling and representing corporate and individual clients in regulatory enforcement actions, government investigations, criminal defense matters, and internal investigations.
Career & Education
- Loyola Marymount University, B.A., English, Minor in French, 2015
- University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, J.D., 2019
- California
Professional Activities and Memberships
- Board Member-at-Large, Thurgood Marshall Bar Association
- Board Member, Finance Chair, Langston Bar Association
David's Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 10.13.26
On October 1, 2026, Judge Brian M. Cogan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied NYP’s motion to dismiss a consolidated antitrust complaint brought by three self-funded union health plans. The ruling is significant for two reasons. First, it demonstrates that plaintiffs can successfully allege market power against hospital systems even in the absence of traditionally high market shares. Second, the court’s reasoning closely tracks the arguments advanced by the DOJ in its Statement of Interest filed in the case: that market power need not be established through market share alone and can be shown through direct evidence such as supracompetitive pricing, and that exclusionary conduct and rival foreclosure are not required elements of a Section 1 claim. The recent decision validates the government’s legal theories and could enhance the viability of the DOJ’s parallel action against NYP, which is currently proceeding in the Southern District of New York.
Firm News | 8 min read | 01.02.25
Crowell & Moring Elects 12 New Partners, Promotes Four to Senior Counsel and 25 to Counsel
Firm News | 1 min read | 02.26.24
Representative Matters
- Defending corporation in the food industry in an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice into allegations of illegal agreements among competitors.
- Representing individuals in litigation with the Food and Drug Administration regarding allegations of GMP violations.
- Representing manufacturer against allegations of market monopolization brought by a competitor.
- Defending hospital system in antitrust class action litigation alleging employee no-poach conspiracy amongst defendants.
- Defending pharmacy benefit management company in antitrust litigation alleging a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy amongst competitors.
- Achieved a favorable outcome for an individual client who pled guilty to participation in an insider trading scheme.
- Conducted FCPA risk assessment and internal investigation of a pending transaction for a manufacturer operating in the Caribbean.
- Represented an individual client in a pro-bono immigration matter resulting in reunification of client and his spouse after several years.
- Achieved favorable outcome for elderly homeowners facing potential foreclosure of their lifelong home.
David's Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 10.13.26
On October 1, 2026, Judge Brian M. Cogan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied NYP’s motion to dismiss a consolidated antitrust complaint brought by three self-funded union health plans. The ruling is significant for two reasons. First, it demonstrates that plaintiffs can successfully allege market power against hospital systems even in the absence of traditionally high market shares. Second, the court’s reasoning closely tracks the arguments advanced by the DOJ in its Statement of Interest filed in the case: that market power need not be established through market share alone and can be shown through direct evidence such as supracompetitive pricing, and that exclusionary conduct and rival foreclosure are not required elements of a Section 1 claim. The recent decision validates the government’s legal theories and could enhance the viability of the DOJ’s parallel action against NYP, which is currently proceeding in the Southern District of New York.
Firm News | 8 min read | 01.02.25
Crowell & Moring Elects 12 New Partners, Promotes Four to Senior Counsel and 25 to Counsel
Firm News | 1 min read | 02.26.24
Insights
David's Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 10.13.26
On October 1, 2026, Judge Brian M. Cogan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied NYP’s motion to dismiss a consolidated antitrust complaint brought by three self-funded union health plans. The ruling is significant for two reasons. First, it demonstrates that plaintiffs can successfully allege market power against hospital systems even in the absence of traditionally high market shares. Second, the court’s reasoning closely tracks the arguments advanced by the DOJ in its Statement of Interest filed in the case: that market power need not be established through market share alone and can be shown through direct evidence such as supracompetitive pricing, and that exclusionary conduct and rival foreclosure are not required elements of a Section 1 claim. The recent decision validates the government’s legal theories and could enhance the viability of the DOJ’s parallel action against NYP, which is currently proceeding in the Southern District of New York.
Firm News | 8 min read | 01.02.25
Crowell & Moring Elects 12 New Partners, Promotes Four to Senior Counsel and 25 to Counsel
Firm News | 1 min read | 02.26.24
