Salazar v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

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 || Counsel for Defendants

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

FRANCISCA T. SALAZAR, an individual, CASE NO. 2:19-cv-02225-RFB-BNW Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND STAY OF DISCOVERY ANI E V. ALL PRETRIAL DEADLINES C. R. BARD, INC., a New Jersey corporation; (FIFTH REQUEST) BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC., an

Arizona corporation, and DOES | through 10,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Francisca Salazar (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Periphera 2] || Vascular, Inc. (“Defendants” and collectively with the Plaintiff, the “Parties”), pursuant to Fed. R Civ. P. 26(c) and (d) and LR JA 6-1, respectfully request that this Court temporarily stay discover. and all pretrial deadlines, as set forth in the revised Discovery Plain (Dkt. 44) until June 28, 202 while the Parties finalize settlement. In support thereof, the Parties state as follows: 1. As previously reported, the Parties reached a global settlement in principle of this an other cases involving Bard Inferior Vena Cava filters that have been filed across the nation, □□□ settlement agreement is in place. The Parties have been working diligently and in good faith t finalize all terms and payments pursuant to that settlement.

2. The Parties report that they continue to work diligently toward finalizing th settlement by working to obtain releases and resolve liens, but due to complexity and volume, the anticipate that completion of the settlement process will take approximately 90 days. Accordingly the Parties request a 90-day extension of the stay in this matter.

3. The Parties are waiting on final paperwork from this Plaintiff and many others, t complete the settlement process.

4, Neither party will be prejudiced by this extension and this will prevent unnecessar expenditures of the Parties and of judicial resources.

5. Accordingly, the Parties request that this Court issue an order staying discovery an pretrial deadlines until June 28, 2021 to allow the Parties to finalize settlement. This will prever unnecessary expenditures of the Parties and judicial resources.

6. A district court has broad discretion over pretrial discovery rulings. Crawford-El \ sed 13 || Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); accord Republic of Ecuador v. Hinchee, 741 F.3d 1185, 1188-8! a 14 || (11th Cir. 2013); Thermal Design, Inc. v. Am. Soc’y of Heating, Refrigerating & Air-Conditionin, 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 furtheranc of the orderly administration of justice.”).

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

8. Facilitating the efforts of parties to resolve their disputes weighs in favor of grantin: astay. 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 an: permit them to mediate global settlement. The Court granted the stay, finding the parties would b prejudiced if required to move forward with discovery at that time and a stay would potentiall prevent an unnecessary complication in the case. /d. at *3. Here, the Parties have □□□□□□□ settlement in principle.

9. The Parties agree that the relief sought herein is necessary to handle the case in th most economical fashion and to ensure that the Court’s time and resources are not expended on matter that may not remain on its docket, yet will allow sufficient time to finalize settlement in thi matter.

{/// \/// sed 13 |I/// \/// flv

I///

J///

W/// {///

WW/// {///

W/// f/// {/// \I/// {///

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendants respectfully request the Court’s approval of thi stipulation to stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines until June 28, 2021 to allow the Parties t finalize settlement.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Respectfully submitted this 26" day of February 2021.

DALIMONTE RUEB STOLLER, LLP GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP g By: _/s/ Gregory D. Rueb By: /s/Eric W. Swanis GREGORY D. RUEB, ESQ. ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ.

CA SBN 154589 Nevada Bar No. 006840 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 1550 10845 Griffith Peak Drive Los Angeles, CA 90071 Suite 600

Telephone: (949) 375-6843 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 1] Email: [email protected] [email protected] Brian Nettles, Esq. Counsel for Defendants Nevada Bar No. 007462

613 NETTLES MORRIS

S58 1389 Galleria Drive, Ste. 200

Henderson, Nevada 89014

2385 Telephone: (702) 434-8282 ee 5 [email protected]

Counsel for Plaintiff

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2! warn tae □

United States District Court

DATED this Ist day of March, 2021.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 26, 2021, I caused the foregoing document to b electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will sen notification of such filing to the CM/ECF participants registered to receive such service.

/s/ Shermielynn Irasga An employee of GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLI

1G