Buran v. C R Bard Incorporated

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 3, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00608
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6840 2 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600 3 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 4 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 5 swanise@gtlaw.com

6 CHRISTOPHER NEUMANN, ESQ. 7 Admitted Pro Hac Vice GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 8 1144 15th Street, Suite 3300 Denver, Colorado 80202 9 Telephone: (303) 572-6500 10 n e u m a n nc@gtlaw.com 11 C ounsel for Defendants 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

14 ROBERT BURAN, CASE NO. 2:20-cv-00608-GMN-BNW

15 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND STAY OF DISCOVERY AND 16 v. ALL PRETRIAL DEADLINES 17 (FIFTH REQUEST) C. R. BARD, INCORPORATED and BARD 18 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INCORPORATED,

19 Defendants.

20 21 Plaintiff Robert Buran (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral 22 Vascular, Inc. (“Defendants” and collectively with Plaintiff, the “Parties”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 23 P. 26(c) and (d) and LR IA 6-1, respectfully request that this Court temporarily stay discovery and all 24 pretrial deadlines, as set forth in the Discovery Plan (Dkt. 33), until June 28, 2021 while the Parties 25 finalize settlement. In support thereof, the Parties state as follows: 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 1. This case was part of the Multi-District Litigation proceeding In re: Bard IVC Filters 2 Product Liability Litigation, pending before Senior Judge David Campbell of the District of 3 Arizona. 4 2. Plaintiff alleges experiencing complications following the implantation of a Bard 5 Inferior Vena Cava (“IVC”) filter, a prescription medical device. He has asserted three strict products 6 liability counts (manufacturing defect, information defect (failure to warn) and design defect), six 7 negligence counts (design, manufacture, failure to recall/retrofit, failure to warn, negligent 8 misrepresentation and negligence per se), two breach of warranty counts (express and implied), two 9 counts sounding in fraud (fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment), an unfair and 10 deceptive trade practices count, and a claim for punitive damages. 11 3. Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations. 12 4. After four years, the completion of general issue discovery, and the conduct of three 13 bellwether trials, Judge Campbell ordered that cases, which were not settled or were not close to 14 settling, be transferred or remanded to the appropriate jurisdictions around the country for case- 15 specific discovery and trial. As a part of that process, he established a “track” system, wherein certain 16 cases were placed on tracks either to finalize settlement paperwork, continue settlement negotiations, 17 or be remanded or transferred. 18 5. This case was transferred to this Court on March 30, 2020 because at the time it was 19 not close to settling. But, since that date, the Parties have engaged in further settlement discussions 20 and have reached a global settlement in principle of this and other cases involving Bard Inferior Vena 21 Cava filters that have been filed across the nation, and a settlement agreement is in place. The Parties 22 have been working diligently and in good faith to finalize all terms and payments pursuant to that 23 settlement. 24 6. The Parties report that they continue to work diligently toward finalizing the settlement 25 by working to obtain releases and resolve liens, but due to complexity and volume, they anticipate 26 that completion of the settlement process will take approximately 90 days. Accordingly, the Parties 27 request a 90-day extension of the stay in this matter. 28 / / / 1 7. The Parties are waiting on final paperwork from this Plaintiff and many others, to 2 complete the settlement process. 3 8. Neither party will be prejudiced by this extension and this will prevent unnecessary 4 expenditures of the Parties and of judicial resources. 5 9. Accordingly, the Parties request that this Court issue an order staying discovery and 6 pretrial deadlines until June 28, 2021 to allow the Parties time to finalize settlement. This will 7 prevent unnecessary expenditures of the Parties and judicial resources as well as place this case on a 8 similar “track” as the MDL cases Judge Campbell determined should continue settlement dialogue. 9 10. A district court has broad discretion over pretrial discovery rulings. Crawford-El v. 10 Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); accord Republic of Ecuador v. Hinchee, 741 F.3d 1185, 1188-89 11 (11th Cir. 2013); Thermal Design, Inc. v. Am. Soc’y of Heating, Refrigerating & Air-Conditioning 12 Eng’rs, Inc., 755 F.3d 832, 837 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Cook v. Kartridg Pak Co., 840 F.2d 602, 13 604 (8th Cir. 1988) (“A district court must be free to use and control pretrial procedure in furtherance 14 of the orderly administration of justice.”). 15 11. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d), a court may limit the scope 16 of discovery or control its sequence. Britton, 523 U.S. at 598. Although settlement negotiations do 17 not automatically excuse a party from its discovery obligations, the parties can seek a stay prior to the 18 cutoff date. Sofo v. Pan-Am. Life Ins. Co., 13 F.3d 239, 242 (7th Cir. 1994); see also Wichita Falls 19 Office Assocs. v. Banc One Corp., 978 F.2d 915, 918 (5th Cir. 1993) (finding that a “trial judge’s 20 decision to curtail discovery is granted great deference,” and noting that the discovery had been 21 pushed back a number of times because of pending settlement negotiations). 22 12. Facilitating the efforts of parties to resolve their disputes weighs in favor of granting 23 a stay. In Coker v. Dowd, 2:13-cv-0994-JCM-NJK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201845, at *2-3 (D. Nev. 24 July 8, 2013), the parties requested a 60-day stay to facilitate ongoing settlement negotiations and 25 permit them to mediate global settlement. The Court granted the stay, finding the parties would be 26 prejudiced if required to move forward with discovery at that time and a stay would potentially 27 prevent an unnecessary complication in the case. Id. at *3. Here, the Parties have reached a settlement 28 in principle. 1 13. The Parties agree that the relief sought herein is necessary to handle the case in th 2 ||most economical fashion and to ensure that the Court’s time and resources are not expended on 3 || matter that may not remain on its docket, yet will allow sufficient time to finalize settlement in th 4 || matter. 5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendants respectfully request the Court’s approval of th 6 || stipulation to stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines until June 28, 2021 to allow the Parties 1 7 || finalize settlement. 8 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 9 Dated this 26" day of February 2021. 10 DALIMONTE RUEB STOLLER, LLP GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

12 By: _/s/ Gregory D. Rueb By: _/s/Eric W. Swanis GREGORY D. RUEB, ESQ. ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. eee 13 Admitted Pro Hac Vice Nevada Bar No. 6840 14 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1550 Los 10845 Griffith Peak Drive Angeles, California 90071 Suite 600 15 greg@drlawllp.com Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 16 BRIAN D. NETTLES, ESQ. CHRISTOPHER NEUMANN, ESQ. NETTLES MORRIS Admitted Pro Hac Vice 7 1389 Galleria Drive, Suite 200 1144 15th Street, Suite 3300 18 Henderson, Nevada 89014 Denver, Colorado 80202 brian@nettlesmorris.com neumannc@gtlaw.com 19 Counsel for Plaintiff Counsel for Defendants 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 xg Lea on BRENDA WEKSLER United States Magistrate Judge 25 Dated March 3, 2021. 26 27 28