Source: https://www.stinson.com/TimothyGriffin/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:54:29+00:00

Document:
Tim Griffin's recent representations include defending medical technology companies in individual, coordinated and consolidated product liability actions involving orthopedic, diagnostic, and other prescription products. He has also served as national coordinating and trial counsel in cases involving any array of other products and claims of catastrophic injuries and loss. He is currently co-lead defense counsel in In re Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II Hip Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2441.
Tim represents a wide array of financial market participants, including broker-dealers, hedge funds, banks, insurance companies, and investors. Tim also represents industry participants in regulatory investigations. He is currently representing major financial institutions in litigation concerning the origination, sale, and securitization of home mortgages.
Prior to joining Stinson Leonard Street, Tim clerked for the Honorable Bruce M. Van Sickle of the U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota.
Pro bono, Tim has represented parties and amicus curiae in cases involving Constitutional issues, including: Webster v. Hennepin County, 2017 WL 1316109 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 10, 2017) (amicus curiae brief addressing impact of County's refusal to respond to term search requests under open records law); Keefe v. Adams, 840 F.3d 523 (8th Cir. 2016) (amicus curie brief addressing constitutionality of restrictions on off-campus, on-line speech); League of Women Voters v. Ritchie, 819 N.W.2d 636 (Minn. 2012) (amicus curie brief addressing impact of proposed photographic identification requirement on certain citizens); Occupy Minneapolis v. County of Hennepin, 866 F. Supp. 2d 1062 (D. Minn. 2011) (represented protestors and secured peaceful resolution); The Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War v. The City of St. Paul, Minn., 557 F. Supp. 1014 (D. Minn. 2008) (represented protestors in challenging time, place, and manner restrictions); Jewish Community Action v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 657 N.W.2d 604 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003) (represented parties in successful challenge to good-cause exempt rule-making).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.