1 ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6840 2 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 3 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 4 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 5 Email: [email protected] 6 CASEY SHPALL, ESQ.* 7 *Admitted Pro Hac Vice 8 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1144 15th Street, Suite 3300 9 Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: (303) 572-6500 10 Email: [email protected] 11 12 C ounsel for Defendants 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 FOR THE DISTRI CT OF NEVADA 15 DOROTHY HARRIS, CASE NO. 2:20-cv-00612-JCM-BNW

16 Plaintiff, 17 STIPULATION TO STAY DISCOVERY v. 18 AND ALL PRETRIAL DEADLINES C. R. BARD, INC. and BARD 19 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC, 20 Defendants. 21

22

23 Plaintiff Dorothy Harris (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard 24 Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (“Defendants” and collectively with Plaintiff, the 25 “Parties”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and (d) and LR IA 6-2, respectfully request that 26 this Court temporarily stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines until August 29, 2020 while 27 the Parties pursue settlement discussions. In support thereof, the Parties state as follows: 28 / / / 1 1. This case was part of the Multi-District Litigation proceeding In re: 2 Bard IVC Filters Product Liability Litigation, pending before Senior Judge David 3 Campbell of the District of Arizona. 4 2. Plaintiff alleges experiencing complications following the implantation 5 of a Bard Inferior Vena Cava (“IVC”) filter, a prescription medical device. She has 6 asserted three strict products liability counts (manufacturing defect, information defect 7 (failure to warn) and design defect), six negligence counts (design, manufacture, 8 failure to recall/retrofit, failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation and negligence 9 per se), two breach of warranty counts (express and implied), two counts sounding in 10 fraud (fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment), an unfair and 11 deceptive trade practices count, and a claim for punitive damages. 12 3. Defendants deny the allegations contained in the Complaint. 13 4. After four years, the completion of general issue discovery, and the 14 conduct or three bellwether trials, Judge Campbell ordered that cases, which have not 15 settled or are not close to settling, be transferred or remanded to the appropriate 16 jurisdictions around the country for case-specific discovery and trial. As a part of that 17 process, he established a “track” system, wherein certain cases were placed on tracks 18 either to finalize settlement paperwork, continue settlement negotiations, or be 19 remanded or transferred. 20 5. This case was transferred to this Court on March 31, 2020 because at the 21 time it was not close to settling. But, since that date, the Parties have engaged in further 22 settlement discussions. The Parties believe that a stay is necessary to conserve their 23 resources and attention so that they may attempt to resolve this case and those of two 24 other plaintiffs represented by Plaintiff’s counsel with cases pending before this Court. 25 6. Accordingly, the Parties request that this Court issue an order staying 26 discovery and pretrial deadlines until August 29, 2020 to allow the Parties time to 27 continue to engage in settlement discussions. This will further facilitate settlement 28 discussions and prevent unnecessary expenditures of the Parties and judicial 1 resources as well as place this case on a similar “track” as the MDL cases Judge 2 Campbell determined should continue settlement dialogue. 3 7. A district court has broad discretion over pretrial discovery 4 rulings. Crawford-El v. Britton,

(1998); accord, Republic of 5 Ecuador v. Hinchee,

(11th Cir. 2013); Thermal Design, Inc. v. 6 Am. Soc’y of Heating, Refrigerating & Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.,

832, 837 (7th Cir. 2014); see also, Cook v. Kartridg Pak Co.,

, 604 8 (8th Cir. 1988) (“A district court must be free to use and control pretrial procedure in 9 furtherance of the orderly administration of justice.”). 10 8. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d), a court may 11 limit the scope of discovery or control its sequence. Britton,

598. Although settlement negotiations do not automatically excuse a party from its 13 discovery obligations, the parties can seek a stay prior to the cutoff date. Sofo v. Pan- 14 American Life Ins. Co.,

(7th Cir. 1994); see also, Wichita Falls Office 15 Assocs. V. Banc One Corp.,

(5th Cir. 1993) (finding that a “trial 16 judge’s decision to curtail discovery is granted great deference,” and noting that the 17 discovery had been pushed back a number of times because of pending settlement 18 negotiations). 19 9. Facilitating the efforts of parties to resolve their disputes weighs in favor 20 of granting a stay. In Coker v. Dowd, 2:13-cv-0994-JCM-NJK,

201845, at *2-3 (D. Nev. July 8, 2013), the parties requested a 60-day stay to facilitate 22 ongoing settlement negotiations and permit them to mediate global settlement. The 23 Court granted the stay, finding the parties would be prejudiced if required to move 24 forward with discovery at that time and a stay would potentially prevent an 25 unnecessary complication in the case. Id. at *3. Similarly, the Parties in the present 26 case are engaged in ongoing comprehensive settlement negotiations with Plaintiff and 27 the other two plaintiffs represented by Plaintiffs’ counsel. 28 / / / 1 10.‘ The Parties agree that the relief sought herein is necessary to handle th 2 case in the most economical fashion yet allow sufficient time to schedule and complet 3 discovery if necessary, consistent with the scheduling obligations of counsel. Th 4 relief sought in this Motion is not being requested for delay, but so that justice may □□ 5 done. 6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendants respectfully request the Court’s approval ¢ 7 || this stipulation to stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines until August 29, 2020 to allow th 8 || Parties to conduct ongoing settlement negotiations. 9 IT IS SO STIPULATED 10 Respectfully submitted on August 5, 2020. 11 WENDT LAW FIRM, P.C. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 12 By: /s/ Samuel M. Wendt By: /s/ Eric W. Swanis 13 SAMUEL M. WENDT, ESQ.* ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Nevada Bar No. 6840 14 [email protected] [email protected] 15 4717 Grand Avenue, Suite 130 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 60( 8 Kansas City, Missouri 64112 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 16 7 PETER C. WETHERALL, ESQ. CASEY SHPALL, ESQ.* WETHERALL GROUP LTD. *Admitted Pro Hac Vice 18 Nevada Bar No. 4414 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP [email protected] 1144 15th Street, Suite 3300 19 9345 West Sunset Road, Suite 100 Denver, Colorado 80202 20 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 Telephone: (303) 572-6500 Email: [email protected] 21 Counsel for Plaintiff Counsel for Defendants 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 BRENDA WEKSLER 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 Dated this St) of August 2020. 28