Hall v. C R Bard Incorporated

ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 6840

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600

Las Vegas, Nevada 89135

Telephone: (702) 792-3773

Facsimile: (702) 792-9002

Email: [email protected]

CHRISTOPHER J. NEUMANN, ESQ.

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

1144 15th Street, Suite 3300

Denver, Colorado 80202

Telephone: (303) 572-6500

Email: [email protected]

C ounsel for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRI CT OF NEVADA

GAILYN HALL, Case No. 3:20-cv-00313-LRH-CLB Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND ALL PRETRIAL DEADLINES v. (SECOND REQUEST)

C. R. BARD, INCORPORATED and BARD

PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INCORPORATED,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Gailyn Hall (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (“Defendants” and collectively with Plaintiff, the “Parties”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 22 P. 26(c) and (d) and LR IA 6-2, respectfully request that this Court temporarily stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines until April 19, 2021 while the Parties finalize settlement documents. In support thereof, the Parties state as follows:

1. This case was part of the Multi-District Litigation proceeding In re: Bard IVC Filters Product Liability Litigation, pending before Senior Judge David Campbell of the District of Arizona.

2. Plaintiff alleges experiencing complications following the implantation of a Bard Inferior Vena Cava (“IVC”) filter, a prescription medical device. She has asserted three strict products liability counts (manufacturing defect, information defect (failure to warn) and design defect), six negligence counts (design, manufacture, failure to recall/retrofit, failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation and negligence per se), two breach of warranty counts (express and implied), two counts sounding in fraud (fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment), an unfair and deceptive trade practices count, and a claim for punitive damages.

3. Defendants deny the allegations contained in the Complaint.

4. After four years, the completion of general issue discovery, and the conduct of three bellwether trials, Judge Campbell ordered that cases, which have not settled or are not close to settling, be transferred or remanded to the appropriate jurisdictions around the country for case-specific discovery and trial. As a part of that process, he established a “track” system, wherein certain cases were placed on tracks either to finalize settlement paperwork, continue settlement negotiations, or be remanded or transferred.

5. This case was transferred to this Court on March 30, 2020 because at the time it was not close to settling. But, since that date, the Parties have engaged in further settlement discussions and have reached a settlement in principle. The Parties believe that a stay is necessary to conserve their resources and attention so that they may finalize settlement documents in this case and those of two other plaintiffs represented by Plaintiff’s counsel with cases pending before this Court. 6. Accordingly, the Parties request that this Court issue an order staying discovery and pretrial deadlines until April 19, 2021.

7. A district court has broad discretion over pretrial discovery rulings. Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); accord Republic of Ecuador v. Hinchee, 741 F.3d 1185, 1188-89 (11th Cir. 2013); Thermal Design, Inc. v. Am. Soc’y of Heating, Refrigerating & Air-Conditioning Eng’rs, Inc., 755 F.3d 832, 837 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Cook v. Kartridg Pak Co., 840 F.2d 602, (8th Cir. 1988) (“A district court must be free to use and control pretrial procedure in furtherance of the orderly administration of justice.”).

8. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d), a court may limit the scope of discovery or control its sequence. Britton, 523 U.S. at 598. Although settlement negotiations do not automatically excuse a party from its discovery obligations, the parties can seek a stay prior to the cutoff date. Sofo v. Pan-Am. Life Ins. Co., 13 F.3d 239, 242 (7th Cir. 1994); see also Wichita Falls Office Assocs. v. Banc One Corp., 978 F.2d 915, 918 (5th Cir. 1993) (finding that a “trial judge’s decision to curtail discovery is granted great deference,” and noting that the discovery had been pushed back a number of times because of pending settlement negotiations).

9. Facilitating the efforts of parties to resolve their disputes weighs in favor of granting a stay. In Coker v. Dowd, 2:13-cv-0994-JCM-NJK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201845, at *2-3 (D. Nev. July 8, 2013), the parties requested a 60-day stay to facilitate ongoing settlement negotiations and permit them to mediate global settlement. The Court granted the stay, finding the parties would be prejudiced if required to move forward with discovery at that time and a stay would potentially prevent an unnecessary complication in the case. Id. at *3. Here, the Parties have reached a settlement in principle.

10. The Parties agree that the relief sought herein is necessary to handle the case in the most economical fashion yet allow sufficient time to schedule and complete discovery if necessary, consistent with the scheduling obligations of counsel. The relief sought in this Motion is not being requested for delay, but so that justice may be done.

1 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendants respectfully request the Court’s approval of th || stipulation to stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines until April 19, 2021 to allow the Parties 1 || finalize settlement documents.

4 IT IS SO STIPULATED.

5 Respectfully submitted on February 16, 2021.

6 || MCSWEENEY LANGEVIN, LLC GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP By: /s/ David M. Langevin By: /s/ Eric W. Swanis DAVID M. LANGEVIN, ESQ. ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ.

9 Admitted Pro Hac Vice Nevada Bar No. 6840 [email protected] [email protected] 10 [email protected] 10845 Griffith Peak Drive 2116 Second Ave. South Suite 600

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 12 Telephone: (612)746-4646

Facsimile: (612) 454-2678 CHRISTOPHER J. NEUMANN, ESQ.

Admitted Pro Hac Vice KRISTIE L. FISCHER 1144 15th Street, Suite 3300 Nevada Bar No. 11693 Denver, Colorado 80202 | 2565 Coral Sky Court

5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89142 Counsel for Defendants es 16 [email protected] (702) 218-0253

Counsel for Plaintiffs

20 IT ISSO ORDERED.

22 Dated this 2021.

23 ‘ UNITED STATES GISTRATE JUDGE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 16, 2021, I caused the foregoing document to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the CM/ECF participants registered to receive service in this case.

/s/ Shermielynn Irasga

An employee of GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP