Giambra v. C R Bard Incorporated

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 11, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01580
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 006840 2 GLENN F. MEIER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 006059 3 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 5 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 Email: swanise@gtlaw.com 6 meierg@gtlaw.com

7 CASEY SHPALL, ESQ. Admitted Pro Hac Vice 8 GREGORY R. TAN, ESQ. 9 Admitted Pro Hac Vice GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 10 1144 15th Street, Suite 3300 Denver, Colorado 80202 11 Telephone: 303) 572-6500 Email: shpallc@gtlaw.com 12 tangr@gtlaw.com 13 C ounsel for Defendants 14 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16

WILLIAM JOSEPH GIAMBRA, CASE NO.: 2:19-cv-01580-APG-BNW 17

18 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY 19 DISCOVERY AND PRETRIAL v. DEADLINES 20 C. R. BARD, INCORPORATED and BARD 21 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INCORPORATED, 22

23 Defendants.

25 Plaintiffs William Joseph Giambra and William Joseph Giambra, Jr. (“Plaintiffs”) and 26 Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (“Defendants” and collectively with 27 Plaintiff, the “Parties”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and (d) and LR IA 6-2, respectfully request 1 Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss filed on July 8, 2020. [Dkt. 50.] Plaintiffs filed their response 2 on August 6, 2020 [Dkt. 55] and Defendants replied on August 13, 2020 [Dkt. 56]. In further support 3 thereof, the Parties state as follows: 4 1. A district court has broad discretion over pretrial discovery rulings. Crawford-El v. 5 Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); accord, Republic of Ecuador v. Hinchee, 741 F.3d 1185, 1188-89 6 (11th Cir. 2013); Thermal Design, Inc. v. Am. Soc’y of Heating, Refrigerating & Air-Conditioning 7 Engineers, Inc., 755 F.3d 832, 837 (7th Cir. 2014); see also, Cook v. Kartridg Pak Co., 840 F.2d 602, 8 604 (8th Cir. 1988) (“A district court must be free to use and control pretrial procedure in furtherance 9 of the orderly administration of justice.”). 10 2. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d), a court may limit the scope of 11 discovery or control its sequence. Britton, 523 U.S. at 598. See also, Wichita Falls Office Assocs. v. 12 Banc One Corp., 978 F.2d 915, 918 (5th Cir. 1993) (finding that a “trial judge’s decision to curtail 13 discovery is granted great deference.”). 14 3. In order to conserve both the Court’s and the Parties’ resources, the Parties request the Court 15 stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines until the Court rules on the Defendants’ pending motion to 16 dismiss. 17 4. The Parties agree that the relief sought herein is necessary to handle the case in the most 18 economical fashion yet allow sufficient time to schedule and complete discovery if necessary, 19 consistent with the scheduling obligations of counsel. The relief sought in this Motion is not being 20 requested for delay, but so that justice may be done. 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / ] For the foregoing reasons, the Parties request the Court grant a stay of discovery and pretria 2 || deadlines until the Court rules on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 3 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 4 5 Respectfully submitted this 9" day of December 2020. 6 || WETHERALL GROUP, LTD. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 7 By:_/s/ Peter C. Wetherall By: 4s/ Eric W. Swanis 8 Peter C. Wetherall, Esq. ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. 9345 West Sunset Road, Suite 100 swanise@gtlaw.com 9 Las Vegas, NV 89148 Nevada Bar No. 6840 Tel: (702) 838-8500 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Ste. 600 10 pwetherall@wetherallgroup.com Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Attorneys for Plaintiff CASEY SHPALL, ESO." shpalle@gtlaw.com 12 GREGORY R. TAN, ESQ.* tangr@gtlaw.com 13 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 238 14 1144 15th Street, Suite 3300 se Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: (303) 572-6500 *Admitted Pro Hac Vice 16 Counsel for Defendants 17 ORDER 18 The parties’ stipulation is GRANTED. IT |S FURTHER ORDERED the parties must file a 19 || Proposed discovery plan and scheduling order within14 days after the district judge's ruling on motion to dismiss, unless the case is dismissed with prejudice or dismissed 20 || without prejudice and the plaintiff does not intend to file an amended complaint. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED 22 DATED: 2:58 pm, December 11, 2020 23 Les RDA, 24 □ BRENDA WEKSLER 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDG] 26 27 28