People

Todd Davis is a partner with King & Spalding's Mass Tort and Toxic Tort practice. For the last twenty-four years, Mr. Davis' practice has been devoted to representing pharmaceutical and medical device companies, as well as other product manufacturers, in high-stakes personal injury, mass tort, consumer fraud and class action litigation.

Mr. Davis has been recognized in Legal 500’s Product Liability and Mass Tort Defense in the Pharma and Medical Device category.

Full Bio

Credentials

B.A., Stetson University, cum laude

J.D., Mercer University, magna cum laude

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

Florida

Georgia

American Bar Association

State Bar of Georgia

Atlanta Bar Association

The Florida Bar

Sixth and Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Matters

Defeating efforts to certify a nationwide class of Paxil users under personal injury and consumer fraud theories. In re Paxil, 212 F.R.D. 539 (C.D. Cal. 2003). This decision has been referred to as one of the “Big Four” federal court rulings denying class certification in pharmaceutical cases. See In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Lit., 230 F.R.D. 555 (E.D. Ark. 2005).

Defeating efforts to certify a statewide claim of Paxil users under California’s Unfair Competition Law, § 17200. In re Paxil, 218 F.R.D. 242 (C.D. Cal. 2003).

Defeating efforts to certify a nationwide class of pediatric patients who were prescribed a medication not approved by the FDA to treat patients under 18. Pamela Blain, et al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 240 F.R.D. 179 (E.D. Pa. 2007).

See more
Icon close

Close

Matters

Defeating efforts to certify a nationwide class of Paxil users under personal injury and consumer fraud theories. In re Paxil, 212 F.R.D. 539 (C.D. Cal. 2003). This decision has been referred to as one of the “Big Four” federal court rulings denying class certification in pharmaceutical cases. See In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Lit., 230 F.R.D. 555 (E.D. Ark. 2005).

Defeating efforts to certify a statewide claim of Paxil users under California’s Unfair Competition Law, § 17200. In re Paxil, 218 F.R.D. 242 (C.D. Cal. 2003).

Defeating efforts to certify a nationwide class of pediatric patients who were prescribed a medication not approved by the FDA to treat patients under 18. Pamela Blain, et al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 240 F.R.D. 179 (E.D. Pa. 2007).

Trying three cases for GlaxoSmithKline in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, alleging that Paxil causes birth defects (2016, 2010, 2009). In two trials, the courts dismissed plaintiffs' claims because plaintiffs could not prove proximate causation. In the third, which was plaintiffs' No. 1 pick for trial, plaintiffs were awarded compensatory damages less than the actual medical expenses incurred and no punitive damages.

Representing medical device and pharmaceutical companies in federal multi-district litigation and state consolidated proceedings.

Obtaining summary judgments based on federal preemption of state law failure-to-warn claims in cases involving a prescription medication. E.g., O’Neal v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 551 F.Supp.2d 993 (E.D. Cal. 2008); Candace Miller et al v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation, d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, slip op., 2008 WL 510449 (N.D. Okla).

Successfully excluding plaintiff’s experts’ opinions that breast implants cause systemic illness on Daubert grounds in the first breast implant case set for trial in Georgia. Mr. Davis successfully defended that decision on appeal in the first federal appellate decision in the country addressing Daubert issues in the breast implant litigation. Allison v. McGhan Medical Corp. 184 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1999).

Successfully defending a product liability lawsuit filed in the “rocket-docket” of the U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Virginia that involved allegations that a uniformed officer of the Secret Service committed murder and then suicide because of a prescription medication. After an intensive 2-1/2 month discovery period, plaintiff dismissed his lawsuit on the eve of trial. The defendant paid nothing in settlement.

Successfully defending on appeal summary judgment for a pharmaceutical manufacturer based upon the learned intermediary doctrine. Allgood v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, No. 06-cv-3506, 2008 WL 483574 (E.D. La. Feb. 20, 2008), aff’d by No. 08- 30329, 2009 WL 646285 (5th Cir. Mar. 13, 2009), reh’g denied by No. 08-30329 (5th Cir. May 6, 2009).

Obtaining summary judgment in a product liability lawsuit involving a prescription medication within four months after plaintiff filed his lawsuit, Howard v. GlaxoSmithKline, Case No. 05-1525 (U.S.D.C., E.D. Cal.) aff’d (9th Cir. 2007), and obtaining summary judgments in two product liability wrongful death lawsuits when plaintiffs’ claimed they did not timely file their lawsuit because of the defendant’s “fraudulent concealment.” Pamela Blain, et al., v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, Civil Action No. 07-1157- MLB-DWB (U.S.D.C., D. Kan.); Collins v. SmithKlineBeecham Corp., Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, aff'd on appeal.

Managing massive electronic discovery and hard copy productions and coordinating discovery of plaintiffs’ claims.

Successfully defending against motions to compel that sought thousands of privileged documents in personal injury lawsuits involving prescription medications.

Major responsibility in several hundred breast implant cases in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and the District of Columbia. Mr. Davis second-chaired the trial of the first breast implant case tried in Tennessee. The trial lasted five-and-a-half weeks and included claims of both local and systemic injury. The jury returned a defense verdict.

Successfully arguing for transfer of a host of cases to the plaintiffs’ home states under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. (Plaintiffs attempted to bring their lawsuits in the state of the pharmaceutical company’s business office as opposed to the states of their residence.)

Defending high-ranking company executives in depositions.

Representing a manufacturer in an emergency appeal of an order allowing plaintiffs to depose the manufacturer’s in-house litigation counsel. In an appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court, Mr. Davis successfully argued for reversal of the trial court’s order.

Matters

Defeating efforts to certify a nationwide class of Paxil users under personal injury and consumer fraud theories. In re Paxil, 212 F.R.D. 539 (C.D. Cal. 2003). This decision has been referred to as one of the “Big Four” federal court rulings denying class certification in pharmaceutical cases. See In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Lit., 230 F.R.D. 555 (E.D. Ark. 2005).

Defeating efforts to certify a statewide claim of Paxil users under California’s Unfair Competition Law, § 17200. In re Paxil, 218 F.R.D. 242 (C.D. Cal. 2003).

Defeating efforts to certify a nationwide class of pediatric patients who were prescribed a medication not approved by the FDA to treat patients under 18. Pamela Blain, et al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 240 F.R.D. 179 (E.D. Pa. 2007).

See more
Icon close

Close

Matters

Defeating efforts to certify a nationwide class of Paxil users under personal injury and consumer fraud theories. In re Paxil, 212 F.R.D. 539 (C.D. Cal. 2003). This decision has been referred to as one of the “Big Four” federal court rulings denying class certification in pharmaceutical cases. See In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Lit., 230 F.R.D. 555 (E.D. Ark. 2005).

Defeating efforts to certify a statewide claim of Paxil users under California’s Unfair Competition Law, § 17200. In re Paxil, 218 F.R.D. 242 (C.D. Cal. 2003).

Defeating efforts to certify a nationwide class of pediatric patients who were prescribed a medication not approved by the FDA to treat patients under 18. Pamela Blain, et al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 240 F.R.D. 179 (E.D. Pa. 2007).

Trying three cases for GlaxoSmithKline in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, alleging that Paxil causes birth defects (2016, 2010, 2009). In two trials, the courts dismissed plaintiffs' claims because plaintiffs could not prove proximate causation. In the third, which was plaintiffs' No. 1 pick for trial, plaintiffs were awarded compensatory damages less than the actual medical expenses incurred and no punitive damages.

Representing medical device and pharmaceutical companies in federal multi-district litigation and state consolidated proceedings.

Obtaining summary judgments based on federal preemption of state law failure-to-warn claims in cases involving a prescription medication. E.g., O’Neal v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 551 F.Supp.2d 993 (E.D. Cal. 2008); Candace Miller et al v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation, d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, slip op., 2008 WL 510449 (N.D. Okla).

Successfully excluding plaintiff’s experts’ opinions that breast implants cause systemic illness on Daubert grounds in the first breast implant case set for trial in Georgia. Mr. Davis successfully defended that decision on appeal in the first federal appellate decision in the country addressing Daubert issues in the breast implant litigation. Allison v. McGhan Medical Corp. 184 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1999).

Successfully defending a product liability lawsuit filed in the “rocket-docket” of the U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Virginia that involved allegations that a uniformed officer of the Secret Service committed murder and then suicide because of a prescription medication. After an intensive 2-1/2 month discovery period, plaintiff dismissed his lawsuit on the eve of trial. The defendant paid nothing in settlement.

Successfully defending on appeal summary judgment for a pharmaceutical manufacturer based upon the learned intermediary doctrine. Allgood v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, No. 06-cv-3506, 2008 WL 483574 (E.D. La. Feb. 20, 2008), aff’d by No. 08- 30329, 2009 WL 646285 (5th Cir. Mar. 13, 2009), reh’g denied by No. 08-30329 (5th Cir. May 6, 2009).

Obtaining summary judgment in a product liability lawsuit involving a prescription medication within four months after plaintiff filed his lawsuit, Howard v. GlaxoSmithKline, Case No. 05-1525 (U.S.D.C., E.D. Cal.) aff’d (9th Cir. 2007), and obtaining summary judgments in two product liability wrongful death lawsuits when plaintiffs’ claimed they did not timely file their lawsuit because of the defendant’s “fraudulent concealment.” Pamela Blain, et al., v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, Civil Action No. 07-1157- MLB-DWB (U.S.D.C., D. Kan.); Collins v. SmithKlineBeecham Corp., Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, aff'd on appeal.

Managing massive electronic discovery and hard copy productions and coordinating discovery of plaintiffs’ claims.

Successfully defending against motions to compel that sought thousands of privileged documents in personal injury lawsuits involving prescription medications.

Major responsibility in several hundred breast implant cases in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and the District of Columbia. Mr. Davis second-chaired the trial of the first breast implant case tried in Tennessee. The trial lasted five-and-a-half weeks and included claims of both local and systemic injury. The jury returned a defense verdict.

Successfully arguing for transfer of a host of cases to the plaintiffs’ home states under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. (Plaintiffs attempted to bring their lawsuits in the state of the pharmaceutical company’s business office as opposed to the states of their residence.)

Defending high-ranking company executives in depositions.

Representing a manufacturer in an emergency appeal of an order allowing plaintiffs to depose the manufacturer’s in-house litigation counsel. In an appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court, Mr. Davis successfully argued for reversal of the trial court’s order.

Credentials

B.A., Stetson University, cum laude

J.D., Mercer University, magna cum laude

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

Florida

Georgia

American Bar Association

State Bar of Georgia

Atlanta Bar Association

The Florida Bar

Sixth and Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals