Campobasso v. C R Bard Incorporated

D. Nevada

Campobasso v. C R Bard Incorporated

DecidedNovember 20, 2020

Docket2:20-cv-01740

StatusUnknown

This text of Campobasso v. C R Bard Incorporated (Campobasso v. C R Bard Incorporated) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Campobasso v. C R Bard Incorporated, (D. Nev. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. toward settlement. Normally we would just agree Nevada Bar No. 6840 w/ the parties and sign the stip. However, we 2 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600 asked plaintiff's counsel (for the third time now) to 3 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 file a Plaintiff Profile Form onto the docket and Telephone: (702) 792-3773 gave him until 11/18 to do so. He missed the 4 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 deadline. Email: swanise@gtlaw.com

5 6 C ounsel for Defendants I la r ne gc uo am gm e e rn ed q ug irr ia nn gt i pn lg a it nh ti is ff s totip f, il eb u ht i sin Pcl Pu Fd in og n to the IN THE UNITED STATdEoSc kDeItS wT/RinI C2T d aCyOs UaRfteTr the stay is lifted, otherwise 7 IN THE UNITED STATaEnS o DrdIeSrT tRo IsChTo wC OcaUuRseT will issue. 8

FOR THE DISTRI CT OF NEVADA 9 MICHAEL CAMPOBASSO, Case No. 2:20-cv-01740-APG-BNW

10 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY CASE (FIRST 11 v. REQUEST) 12 C. R. BARD, INCORPORATED and BARD 13 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INCORPORATED,

14 Defendants.

15 16 The Parties in the above-captioned matter hereby stipulate and jointly request this Court to 17 stay this case through January 28, 2021, and to extend any existing pretrial deadlines impacted by the 18 stay for one hundred and twenty (120) days to permit them to pursue and finalize a potential global 19 settlement of this and all cases filed by Plaintiff’s counsel in similar matters. The Parties have been 20 working together cooperatively and diligently on settlement efforts. The Parties believe that a stay 21 is necessary to conserve their resources and attention so that they may attempt to resolve this case 22 and the claims of other plaintiffs represented by Plaintiff’s counsel. 23 Plaintiff’s counsel in this matter represents several plaintiffs with cases proceeding in this and 24 other courts across the country asserting similar claims against Defendants for injuries they contend 25 arise out of their use of Defendants’ IVC filters. Plaintiff’s counsel was involved in IVC filter 26 litigation against Defendants in the MDL. Defendants have retained Chip Gaudreau, Esq. of 27 Greenberg Traurig, LLP as settlement counsel for their IVC filter cases; Mr. Gaudreau has 28 successfully resolved thousands of similar cases with other counsel representing similarly-situated 1 plaintiffs. Thus, counsel for the Defendants and Plaintiff are well experienced in the claims and issues 2 in these cases in order to successfully negotiate the resolution of such cases. 3 Notwithstanding the Parties’ diligence in working cooperatively toward settlement, the 4 process is taking longer than originally anticipated. As part of that process, the Parties and their 5 counsel have agreed to “stand down” while they continue to pursue settlement discussions. Thus, the 6 Parties stipulate and jointly request this Court to enter a stay of all discovery through and including 7 January 28, 2021 and extend all pretrial deadlines in this case. 8 Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b) and 26, and the Court’s inherent authority 9 and discretion to manage its own docket, this Court has the authority to grant the requested stay. Fed. 10 R. Civ. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time the court may, for good 11 cause, extend the time....”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) (“A party or any person from whom discovery is 12 sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending . . . The court may, 13 for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, 14 oppression, or undue burden or expense.”). 15 This Court therefore has broad discretion to stay proceedings as incidental to its power to 16 control its own docket – particularly where, as here, a stay would promote judicial economy and 17 efficiency. Bacon v. Reyes, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143300, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 3, 2013) (citing, 18 Munoz-Santana v. U.S. I.N.S., 742 F.2d 561, 562 (9th Cir. 1984)) (“Whether to grant a stay is within 19 the discretion of the court”); Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A district 20 court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court.”); Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 21 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court 22 to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 23 counsel, and for litigants.”). 24 Furthermore, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d) vest the Court with authority 25 to limit the scope of discovery or control its sequence. Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 26 (1998) (“Rule 26 vests the trial judge with broad discretion to tailor discovery narrowly and to dictate 27 the sequence of discovery.”) 28 / / / 1 In deciding whether to stay proceedings, courts weigh the competing interests of the parties 2 and the court: 3 Among those competing interests are the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer 4 in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions 5 of law which could be expected to result from a stay. 6 Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1110 (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). Facilitating the efforts of parties to resolve 7 their disputes weighs in favor of granting a stay. In Coker v. Dowd, 2:13-cv-0994-JCM-NJK, 2013 8 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201845, at *2-3 (D. Nev. July 8, 2013), the parties requested a 60-day stay to 9 facilitate ongoing settlement negotiations and permit them to mediate global settlement. The Court 10 granted the stay, finding the parties would be prejudiced if required to move forward with discovery 11 at that time and a stay would potentially prevent an unnecessary complication in the case. Id. at *3. 12 Similarly, the Parties in the present case are engaged in ongoing global settlement negotiations. 13 Thus, in order to facilitate settlement and conserve the resources of this Court and the Parties, 14 the Parties stipulate and jointly request this Court to enter a stay of this case through January 28, 2021. 15 The Parties further request that the Court extend the deadlines in this case by one hundred and twenty 16 (120) days (more or less to accommodate weekends and holidays) in light of the stay and the Parties’ 17 agreement to “stand-down” and focus on settlement, as follows: 18 PROPOSED 19 EXISTING EXTENDED EVENT DEADLINE DEADLINE 20 Parties shall file a joint status report October 18, 2020 February 15, 2021 21 Non-resident attorneys shall file pro hac vice November 2, 2020 March 2, 2021 22 applications Parties shall meet and confer pursuant to Fed. November 2, 2020 March 2, 2021 23 R. Civ. P. 26(f) 24 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / ] Respectfully submitted this 31st day of October, 2020 2 MCGLYNN GLISSON & MOUTON GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 3 By: _/s/Amanda L. Washington By: /s/Eric W. Swanis 4 AMANDA L. WASHINGTON, ESQ. ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. amanda@mgmattorneys.com Nevada Bar No.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. toward settlement. Normally we would just agree Nevada Bar No. 6840 w/ the parties and sign the stip. However, we 2 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600 asked plaintiff's counsel (for the third time now) to 3 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 file a Plaintiff Profile Form onto the docket and Telephone: (702) 792-3773 gave him until 11/18 to do so. He missed the 4 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 deadline. Email: swanise@gtlaw.com

5 6 C ounsel for Defendants I la r ne gc uo am gm e e rn ed q ug irr ia nn gt i pn lg a it nh ti is ff s totip f, il eb u ht i sin Pcl Pu Fd in og n to the IN THE UNITED STATdEoSc kDeItS wT/RinI C2T d aCyOs UaRfteTr the stay is lifted, otherwise 7 IN THE UNITED STATaEnS o DrdIeSrT tRo IsChTo wC OcaUuRseT will issue. 8

FOR THE DISTRI CT OF NEVADA 9 MICHAEL CAMPOBASSO, Case No. 2:20-cv-01740-APG-BNW

10 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY CASE (FIRST 11 v. REQUEST) 12 C. R. BARD, INCORPORATED and BARD 13 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INCORPORATED,

14 Defendants.

15 16 The Parties in the above-captioned matter hereby stipulate and jointly request this Court to 17 stay this case through January 28, 2021, and to extend any existing pretrial deadlines impacted by the 18 stay for one hundred and twenty (120) days to permit them to pursue and finalize a potential global 19 settlement of this and all cases filed by Plaintiff’s counsel in similar matters. The Parties have been 20 working together cooperatively and diligently on settlement efforts. The Parties believe that a stay 21 is necessary to conserve their resources and attention so that they may attempt to resolve this case 22 and the claims of other plaintiffs represented by Plaintiff’s counsel. 23 Plaintiff’s counsel in this matter represents several plaintiffs with cases proceeding in this and 24 other courts across the country asserting similar claims against Defendants for injuries they contend 25 arise out of their use of Defendants’ IVC filters. Plaintiff’s counsel was involved in IVC filter 26 litigation against Defendants in the MDL. Defendants have retained Chip Gaudreau, Esq. of 27 Greenberg Traurig, LLP as settlement counsel for their IVC filter cases; Mr. Gaudreau has 28 successfully resolved thousands of similar cases with other counsel representing similarly-situated 1 plaintiffs. Thus, counsel for the Defendants and Plaintiff are well experienced in the claims and issues 2 in these cases in order to successfully negotiate the resolution of such cases. 3 Notwithstanding the Parties’ diligence in working cooperatively toward settlement, the 4 process is taking longer than originally anticipated. As part of that process, the Parties and their 5 counsel have agreed to “stand down” while they continue to pursue settlement discussions. Thus, the 6 Parties stipulate and jointly request this Court to enter a stay of all discovery through and including 7 January 28, 2021 and extend all pretrial deadlines in this case. 8 Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b) and 26, and the Court’s inherent authority 9 and discretion to manage its own docket, this Court has the authority to grant the requested stay. Fed. 10 R. Civ. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time the court may, for good 11 cause, extend the time....”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) (“A party or any person from whom discovery is 12 sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending . . . The court may, 13 for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, 14 oppression, or undue burden or expense.”). 15 This Court therefore has broad discretion to stay proceedings as incidental to its power to 16 control its own docket – particularly where, as here, a stay would promote judicial economy and 17 efficiency. Bacon v. Reyes, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143300, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 3, 2013) (citing, 18 Munoz-Santana v. U.S. I.N.S., 742 F.2d 561, 562 (9th Cir. 1984)) (“Whether to grant a stay is within 19 the discretion of the court”); Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A district 20 court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court.”); Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 21 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court 22 to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 23 counsel, and for litigants.”). 24 Furthermore, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d) vest the Court with authority 25 to limit the scope of discovery or control its sequence. Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 26 (1998) (“Rule 26 vests the trial judge with broad discretion to tailor discovery narrowly and to dictate 27 the sequence of discovery.”) 28 / / / 1 In deciding whether to stay proceedings, courts weigh the competing interests of the parties 2 and the court: 3 Among those competing interests are the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer 4 in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions 5 of law which could be expected to result from a stay. 6 Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1110 (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). Facilitating the efforts of parties to resolve 7 their disputes weighs in favor of granting a stay. In Coker v. Dowd, 2:13-cv-0994-JCM-NJK, 2013 8 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201845, at *2-3 (D. Nev. July 8, 2013), the parties requested a 60-day stay to 9 facilitate ongoing settlement negotiations and permit them to mediate global settlement. The Court 10 granted the stay, finding the parties would be prejudiced if required to move forward with discovery 11 at that time and a stay would potentially prevent an unnecessary complication in the case. Id. at *3. 12 Similarly, the Parties in the present case are engaged in ongoing global settlement negotiations. 13 Thus, in order to facilitate settlement and conserve the resources of this Court and the Parties, 14 the Parties stipulate and jointly request this Court to enter a stay of this case through January 28, 2021. 15 The Parties further request that the Court extend the deadlines in this case by one hundred and twenty 16 (120) days (more or less to accommodate weekends and holidays) in light of the stay and the Parties’ 17 agreement to “stand-down” and focus on settlement, as follows: 18 PROPOSED 19 EXISTING EXTENDED EVENT DEADLINE DEADLINE 20 Parties shall file a joint status report October 18, 2020 February 15, 2021 21 Non-resident attorneys shall file pro hac vice November 2, 2020 March 2, 2021 22 applications Parties shall meet and confer pursuant to Fed. November 2, 2020 March 2, 2021 23 R. Civ. P. 26(f) 24 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / ] Respectfully submitted this 31st day of October, 2020 2 MCGLYNN GLISSON & MOUTON GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 3 By: _/s/Amanda L. Washington By: /s/Eric W. Swanis 4 AMANDA L. WASHINGTON, ESQ. ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. amanda@mgmattorneys.com Nevada Bar No. 6840 5 340 Florida Street swanise@gtlaw.com Baton Rouge, LA 70801 10845 Griffith Peak Drive 6 Telephone: (225) 344-3555 Suite 600 7 Facsimile: (225) 344-3666 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Counsel for Plaintiff Telephone: (702) 792-3773 8 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 Counsel for Defendants 9 10 ORDER 1] The Court, having reviewed the stipulation of the Parties, and good cause appearing 12 therefore: s&s 13 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all activity in this 14 case shall be stayed through and including January 28, 2021. 15 a3 IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the 16 discovery deadlines are extended as set forth above. 17 IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that plaintiff 18 must comply with ECF No. 7 within 2 days following the lifting of the stay in this case. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED 20 DATED: 5:28 pm, November 20, 2020 21 22 Gua Leas □□ □□□ □ 3 BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Campobasso v. C R Bard Incorporated, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campobasso-v-c-r-bard-incorporated-nvd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack