McCown 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] > || CASEY SHPALL, ESQ.* *Admitted Pro Hac Vice

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

1144 15" Street, Suite 3300

Denver, Colorado 80202

Telephone: (303) 572-6500

Email: [email protected]

Counsel for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

RANDALL MCCOWN, CASE NO. 2:20-cv-00603-RFB-BNW ars 14 Plaintiffs, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STA £45 DISCOVERY AND ALL PRETRIAL v. DEADLINES (FIRST REQUEST) C. R. BARD, INC.; BARD PERIPHERAL } VASCULAR, INCORPORATED,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Randall McCown (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Periphera Vascular, Inc. “Defendants” and collectively with 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 discovery an j}all pretrial deadlines, as set forth in the Discovery Plan (Dkt. 24), until June 10, 2021 while th Parties finalize settlement. In support thereof, the Parties state as follows: \/// \\///

WW///

7.

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

2. Plaintiff alleges experiencing complications following the implantation of a Bar Inferior Vena Cava (“IVC”) filter, a prescription medical device. He has asserted three strict product liability counts (manufacturing defect, information defect (failure to warn) and design defect), si negligence counts (design, manufacture, failure to recall/retrofit, failure to warn, negligen misrepresentation and negligence per se), two breach of warranty counts (express and implied), tw counts sounding in fraud (fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment), and a claim fo punitive damages.

3. Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations.

4, After four years, the completion of general issue discovery, and the conduct of thre bellwether trials, Judge Campbell ordered that cases, which were not settled or were not close t a 14 ||settling, be transferred or remanded to the appropriate jurisdictions around the country for case g 15 || specific discovery and trial. As a part of that process, he established a “track” system, wherein □□□□□□□ 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 wa not close to settling. But, since that date, the Parties have engaged in further settlement discussion and have reached a global settlement in principle of this and other cases involving Bard Inferior Ven. Cava filters that have been filed across the nation, and a settlement agreement is in place. The Partie have been working diligently and in good faith to finalize all terms and payments pursuant to tha settlement.

6. 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. }///

Fy

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

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

9. Accordingly, the Parties request that this Court issue an order staying discovery an pretrial deadlines until June 10, 2021 to allow the Parties time to finalize settlement. This wil prevent unnecessary expenditures of the Parties and judicial resources as well as place this case □□ similar “track” as the MDL cases Judge Campbell determined should continue settlement dialogue. 10. 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, 1188-8! (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 □□□□□□□□□□□□ a 14 || of the orderly administration of justice.”).

11. 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 di not automatically excuse a party from its discovery obligations, the parties can seek a stay prior t the cutoff date. Sofo v. Pan-Am. Life Ins. Co., 13 F.3d 239, 242 (7th Cir. 1994); see also Wichit Falls Office Assocs. v. Bane 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).

12. 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 reached . settlement in principle.

13. 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.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendants respectfully request the Court’s approval of thi stipulation to stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines until June 10, 2021 to allow the Parties t finalize settlement.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated this 2" day of March 2021.

1] LAW OFFICES OF DONALD G. NORRIS, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

A LAW CORPORATION

3 By: _/s/Donald G. Norris By: _/s/Eric W. Swanis Bee DONALD G. NORRIS, ESQ.* ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ.

“88 14 *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Nevada Bar No. 6840 [email protected] [email protected] ge 45 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 980 10845 Griffith Peak Drive Los Angeles, California 90010 Suite 600

Tel: (213) 487-8880 Las Vegas, NV 89135 CRAIG DRUMMOND, ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 11109 Counsel for Defendants [email protected]

DRUMMOND LAW FIRM, PC

810 Casino Center Blvd., Suite 101

Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

Tel: (702) 366-9966

54 Counsel for Plaintiff

53 IT IS SO ORDERED.

RICHA LWARE, I

United States District Court

DATED this 12th day of March, 2021. ya

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 2, 2021, I caused the foregoing document to be □□□□□□□□□□□□□ filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of suc! filing to the CM/ECF participants registered to receive such service.

/s/_Shermielynn Irasga An employee of GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

E45