Freeman v. C R Bard Incorporated

1 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] 6 meierg(@etlaw.com LORI G. COHEN, ESQ.

Admitted Pro Hac Vice GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP Terminus 200 333 Piedmont Road NE, Suite 2500 Atlanta, Georgia 30305 10 Telephone: (678) 553.2385 Email: [email protected] 11 CHRISTOPHER J. NEUMANN, ESQ.* CANDACE UDUEBOR, ESQ.* 12 *Admitted Pro Hac Vice GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP || 1144 15™ Street, Suite 3300 Denver, Colorado 80202 14 Telephone: (303) 572.6500 235 Email: [email protected] 15 [email protected] || Counsel for Defendants 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA || REECE FREEMAN; BRITTANY FREEMAN, CASE NO. 2:19-cv-01572-RFB-BNW 20 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY CASE V. 9 (FIRST REQUEST) C. R. BARD, INC.; BARD PERIPHERAL || VASCULAR, INCORPORATED, 24 Defendants.

26 Plaintiffs Reece and Brittany Freeman (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bar || Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (“Defendants” and collectively with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), pursuant t || Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and (d) and LR IA 6-2, respectfully request that this Court temporarily sta’ || discovery and all pretrial deadlines until June 30, 2021 while the Parties pursue settlement. I || support thereof, the Parties state as follows: 3 1. This case was part of the Multi-District Litigation proceeding In re: Bard IVC Filter || Product Liability Litigation, pending before Senior Judge David Campbell of the District o || Arizona.

6 2. Plaintiff Reece Freeman alleges experiencing complications following th ||implantation of a Bard Inferior Vena Cava (“IVC”) filter, a prescription medical device. He ha asserted three strict products liability counts (manufacturing defect, information defect (failure t || warn) and design defect), six negligence counts (design, manufacture, failure to recall/retrofit, failur || to warn, negligent misrepresentation and negligence per se), two breach of warranty counts (expres |}and implied), two counts sounding in fraud (fraudulent misrepresentation and □□□□□□□□□ ||concealment), an unfair and deceptive trade practices count, a claim for loss of consortium, and □ || claim for punitive damages. a 14 3. Defendants deny the Plaintiffs’ allegations. g 15 4. After four years, the completion of general issue discovery, and three bellwether trials || Judge Campbell ordered that certain cases, which have not settled or are not close to settling, b 17 transferred or remanded to the appropriate jurisdictions around the country for case-specifi || discovery and trial. As a part of that process, he established a “track” system, wherein certain case || were placed on tracks either to finalize settlement paperwork, continue settlement negotiations, or b 20 remanded or transferred.

21 5. This case was transferred to this Court on May 18, 2017 because at the time it was nc 22 close to settling. Recently, the Parties have begun settlement discussions and are scheduling a globa || mediation as to all of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s IVC filter cases in June 2021. The Parties believe that.

24 stay is necessary to conserve their resources and attention so that they may attempt to resolve thi || case and those of the other plaintiffs represented by Plaintiffs’ counsel with cases pending before thi || Court.

27 6. Accordingly, the Parties request that this Court issue an order staying discovery an 28 pretrial deadlines until June 30, 2021 to allow the Parties time to continue their settlemen || discussions and attend mediation in June if still necessary. This will further facilitate settlemen || discussions, prevent unnecessary expenditures by the Parties, and conserve judicial resources as wel || as place this case on a similar “track” as the MDL cases Judge Campbell determined should continu || settlement dialogue.

5 7. A district court has broad discretion over pretrial discovery rulings. Crawford-E] \ || Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); accord, Republic of Ecuador v. Hinchee, 741 F.3d 1185, □□□□□□□ |{(11® Cir. 2013); Thermal Design, Inc. v. Am. Soc’y of Heating, Refrigerating & Air-Conditionin || Engineers, Inc., 755 F.3d 832, 837 (7" Cir. 2014); see also, Cook y. Kartridg Pak Co., 840 F.2d 602 || 604 (8" Cir. 1988) (“A district court must be free to use and control pretrial procedure in furtheranc || of the orderly administration of justice.”).

11 8. 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 □ 13 automatically excuse a party from its discovery obligations, the parties can seek a stay prior t a 14 the cutoff date. Sofo v. Pan-American Life Ins. Co., 13 F.3d 239, 242 (7" Cir. 1994); see alsc || Wichita Falls Office Assocs. V. Banc One Corp., 978 F.2d 915, 918 (5" Cir. 1993) (finding that || “trial judge’s decision to curtail discovery is granted great deference,” and noting that the discover.

17 || had been pushed back a number of times because of pending settlement negotiations).

18 9. Facilitating the efforts of parties to resolve their disputes weighs in favor of grantin: 19 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 21 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 potentialh || prevent an unnecessary complication in the case. /d. at *3. Similarly, the Parties in the present cas || are engaged in ongoing comprehensive settlement negotiations with Plaintiffs and the other plaintiff || represented by Plaintiffs’ counsel and plan to mediate these cases in June 2021.

26 10. The Parties agree that the relief sought herein is necessary to handle the case in th 27 most economical fashion yet allow sufficient time to schedule and complete discovery if necessary.

28 |}/// 1 consistent with the scheduling obligations of counsel. The relief sought in this stipulation is ne || being requested for delay, but so that justice may be done.

3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendants respectfully request the Court’s approval of thi stipulation to stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines until June 30, 2021 to allow the Parties t || conduct ongoing settlement negotiations and mediation.

6 IT IS SO STIPULATED.

8 Respectfully submitted this 22"! day of February 2021.

9 WETHERALL GROUP, LTD. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 10 By: _/s/ Peter C. Wetherall By: _/s/ Eric W. Swanis 1 PETER C. WETHERALL, ESQ. ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 4414 Nevada Bar No. 6840 12 [email protected] [email protected] 9345 W. Sunset Road, Suite 100 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Ste. 600 see 13 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 838-8500 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Bak 14 Facsimile: (702) 837-5081 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 ee 15 Counsel for Plaintiffs Counsel for Defendants 17 IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 want Se ll 21 United States District Court DATED this Ist day of March, 2021.

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on February 22, 2021, I caused the foregoing document to b |J/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.

6 /s/ Shermielynn Irasga 4 An employee of GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 202 13