Cuyler v. C R Bard Incorporated

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 16, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01737
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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: swanise@gtlaw.com 6 Counsel for Defendants

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 CAROLYN S. CUYLER, CASE NO. 2:20-CV-01737-RFB-BNW 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY AND 13 C. R. BARD INC., a Foreign Corporation; BARD ALL PRETRIAL DEADLINES PERIPHERAL VASCULAR INC., an Arizona 14 Corporation; MCKESSON CORPORATION, a (SECOND REQUEST) Corporation,; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Carolyn S. Cuyler (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral 18 Vascular, Inc. (“Defendants” and collectively with Plaintiff, the “Parties”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 19 P. 26(c) and (d) and LR IA 6-2, respectfully request that this Court temporarily stay discovery and all 20 pretrial deadlines until April 12, 2021 while the Parties finalize settlement documents. In support 21 thereof, the Parties state as follows: 22 1. This case was part of the Multi-District Litigation proceeding In re: Bard IVC Filters 23 Product Liability Litigation, pending before Senior Judge David Campbell of the District of 24 Arizona. 25 2. Plaintiff alleges experiencing complications following the implantation of a Bard 26 Inferior Vena Cava (“IVC”) filter, a prescription medical device. She has asserted three strict 27 products liability counts (manufacturing defect, information defect (failure to warn) and design 28 defect), six negligence counts (design, manufacture, failure to recall/retrofit, failure to warn, 1 negligent misrepresentation and negligence per se), two breach of warranty counts (express and 2 implied), two counts sounding in fraud (fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment), 3 and an unfair and deceptive trade practices count. 4 3. Defendants deny the allegations contained in the Complaint. 5 4. After four years, the completion of general issue discovery, and the conduct of three 6 bellwether trials, Judge Campbell ordered that cases, which have not settled or are not close to 7 settling, be transferred or remanded to the appropriate jurisdictions around the country for case- 8 specific discovery and trial. As a part of that process, he established a “track” system, wherein 9 certain cases were placed on tracks either to finalize settlement paperwork, continue settlement 10 negotiations, or be remanded or transferred. 11 5. This case was transferred to this Court on August 10, 2020 because at the time it was 12 not close to settling. But, since that date, the Parties have engaged in further settlement discussions 13 and have reached a settlement in principle. The Parties believe that a stay is necessary to conserve 14 their resources and attention so that they may finalize settlement documents. 15 6. Accordingly, the Parties request that this Court issue an order staying discovery and 16 pretrial deadlines until April 12, 2021 to allow the Parties time to finalize settlement 17 documents. This will prevent unnecessary expenditures of the Parties and conserve judicial 18 resources. 19 7. A district court has broad discretion over pretrial discovery rulings. Crawford-El v. 20 Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); accord, Republic of Ecuador v. Hinchee, 741 F.3d 1185, 1188-89 21 (11th Cir. 2013); Thermal Design, Inc. v. Am. Soc’y of Heating, Refrigerating & Air-Conditioning 22 Engineers, Inc., 755 F.3d 832, 837 (7th Cir. 2014); see also, Cook v. Kartridg Pak Co., 840 F.2d 602, 23 604 (8th Cir. 1988) (“A district court must be free to use and control pretrial procedure in furtherance 24 of the orderly administration of justice.”). 25 8. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d), a court may limit the scope 26 of discovery or control its sequence. Britton, 523 U.S. at 598. Although settlement negotiations do 27 not automatically excuse a party from its discovery obligations, the parties can seek a stay prior to the 1 Falls Office Assocs. v. Banc One Corp., 978 F.2d 915, 918 (5th Cir. 1993) (finding that a “trial 2 judge’s decision to curtail discovery is granted great deference,” and noting that the discovery had 3 been pushed back a number of times because of pending settlement negotiations). 4 9. Facilitating the efforts of parties to resolve their disputes weighs in favor of granting a 5 stay. In Coker v. Dowd, 2:13-cv-0994-JCM-NJK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201845, at *2-3 (D. Nev. 6 July 8, 2013), the parties requested a 60-day stay to facilitate ongoing settlement negotiations and 7 permit them to mediate global settlement. The Court granted the stay, finding the parties would be 8 prejudiced if required to move forward with discovery at that time and a stay would potentially 9 prevent an unnecessary complication in the case. Id. at *3. Here, the Parties have reached a 10 settlement in principle. 11 10. The Parties agree that the relief sought herein is necessary to handle the case in the 12 most economical fashion yet allow sufficient time to schedule and complete discovery if necessary, 13 consistent with the scheduling obligations of counsel. The relief sought in this Stipulation is not 14 being requested for delay, but so that justice may be done. 15 / / / 16 / / / 17 / / / 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendants respectfully request the Court’s approval of this 2 || stipulation to stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines until April 12, 2021 to allow the Parties to 3 || finalize settlement documents. 4 5 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 6 7 DATED this 9" day of February 2021. 8 FEARS NACHAWATI, PLLC GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLC 9 /s/ Steven Schulte Eric W. Swanis 10 || Steven Schulte Eric W. Swanis (Admitted PHV) Nevada Bar No. 6840 11 Texas Bar No. 24051306 Email: swanise@gtlaw.com D Email: schulte@fnlawfirm.com 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600 5473 Blair Road Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 13 || Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Telephone: (214) 890-0711 14 || Facsimile: (214) 890-0712 Counsel for Defendants 15 || Counsel for Plaintiff 16 17 ORDER 18 || |T IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER 19 ORDERED that by April 12, 2021, the parties must file either dismissal documents or a joint status report about the status of settlement 20 IT IS SO ORDERED 21 DATED: 12:47 pm, February 16, 2021 22 33 KK gr la Arar BRENDA WEKSLER 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28