Freeman v. C R Bard Incorporated

ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 006840

GLENN F. MEIER, ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 006059

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600

Las Vegas, Nevada 89135

Telephone: (702) 792.3773

Facsimile: (702) 792.9002

Email: [email protected] [email protected]

CHRISTOPHER J. NEUMANN, ESQ.*

MATTHEW L. CROCKETT, ESQ.*

GREGORY R. TAN, ESQ.*

CANDACE UDUEBOR, ESQ.* *Admitted Pro Hac Vice

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

1144 15th Street, Suite 3300

Denver, Colorado 80202

Telephone: (303) 572.6500

Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

LORI G. COHEN, ESQ.

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

Terminus 200

333 Piedmont Road NE, Suite 2500

Atlanta, Georgia 30305

Telephone: (678) 553.2385

Email: [email protected]

Counsel for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

REECE FREEMAN; BRITTANY FREEMAN, CASE NO. 2:19-cv-01572-RFB-BNW Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY v. DEADLINES FOR LIMITED PURPOSES C. R. BARD, INC.; BARD PERIPHERAL (FIRST REQUEST)

VASCULAR, INCORPORATED,

Defendants.

COME NOW Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (“Bard” or “Defendants”) and Plaintiffs REECE FREEMAN and BRITTANY FREEMAN (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned counsel of record, pursuant to LR IA 6-1, and hereby stipulate that the discovery deadlines be extended for the limited purpose of allowing the depositions of Plaintiffs’ disclosed family and friend witnesses as well as Defendants’ applicable territory and/or district managers as outlined below. This is the first request for extension of discovery deadlines for this limited purpose.

The parties have engaged in settlement discussions, have conducted written discovery, and are now in the process of deposing fact witnesses. Plaintiffs have been deposed. Mr. Freeman’s treating physicians have also been deposed or will be deposed within the deadline set by the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, Dkt. 41. However, in an effort to conserve the resources of the Parties and to facilitate settlement discussions, the Parties have agreed to reserve the right to take the depositions of Plaintiffs’ disclosed family and friend witnesses, as well as Defendants’ applicable territory and district managers, until no later than thirty (30) days before trial is scheduled to begin.

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b) and 26, and the Court’s inherent authority and discretion to manage its own docket, this Court has the authority to grant the requested extension. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time the court may, for good cause, extend the time....”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) (“A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending . . . The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.”). Furthermore, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d) vest the Court with authority to limit the scope of discovery or control its sequence. Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998) (“Rule 26 vests the trial judge with broad discretion to tailor discovery narrowly and to dictate the sequence of discovery.”).

This Court therefore has broad discretion to extend deadlines or stay proceedings as incidental to its power to control its own docket – particularly where, as here, such action would promote ] Oct. 3, 2013) (citing, Munoz-Santana v. U.S. [.N.S., 742 F.2d 561, 562 (9th Cir. 1984)) (“Whethe to grant a stay is within the discretion of the court”); Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 110! }| (9th Cir. 2005) (“A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court.”) Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental t the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with □□□□□□ of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”’).

For the foregoing reasons, the parties stipulate and respectfully request that this Court modif the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, Dkt. 41, as follows (requested modification are bolded):

DEADLINE

March 8, 2021 Case-specific fact discovery closes with the exception of depositions of Plaintiffs’ disclosed family and friend witnesses and Defendants’ applicable territory and district managers (which shall be taken no later than 30 days before trial is scheduled to Le 14 Te Pama shall produce case-specific expert reports.

The Defendants shall produce case-specific expert reports.

The Plaintiffs shall produce any case-specific rebuttal expert reports. M7 The Defendants shall produce any case-specific rebuttal expert reports. Deadline to depose the Plaintiffs’ case-specific experts.

Deadline to depose the Defendants’ case-specific experts.

Deadline to file Daubert motions and other dispositive motions.

\///

I///

WWII

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated this 12™ day of February 2021.

WETHERALL GROUP, LTD. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP By: _/s/ Peter C. Wetherall By: /s/ Eric W. Swanis PETER C. WETHERALL, ESQ. ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 4414 Nevada Bar No. 006840 9345 W. Sunset Road, Suite 100 GLENN F. MEIER, ESQ.

Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 Nevada Bar No. 006059 Email: [email protected] 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 g Counsel for Plaintiffs Email: [email protected] [email protected] CHRISTOPHER J. NEUMANN, ESQ.

MATTHEW L. CROCKETT, ESQ.* GREGORY R. TAN, ESQ.* CANDACE UDUEBOR, ESQ.* *Admitted Pro Hac Vice GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1144 15" Street, Suite 3300 > Denver, Colorado 80202 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] LORI G. COHEN, ESQ.

Admitted Pro Hac Vice GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP Terminus 200

333 Piedmont Road NE, Suite 2500 Atlanta, Georgia 30305 Email: [email protected] Counsel for Defendants ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the parties' stipulation is GRANTED. To the extent the excepted depositions are necessary for either party's summary judgment briefing, the excepted depositions must be taken prior to the deadline for dispositive motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: 5:35 pm, February 16, 2021 Les Aree

BRENDA WEKSLER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDG