Giambra v. C R Bard Incorporated

Opinion

Nevada Bar No. 006840 Nevada Bar No. 006059 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 Email: swanise@gtlaw.com meierg@gtlaw.com

CASEY SHPALL, ESQ. Admitted Pro Hac Vice GREGORY R. TAN, ESQ. Admitted Pro Hac Vice GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1144 15th Street, Suite 3300 Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: 303) 572-6500 Email: shpallc@gtlaw.com tangr@gtlaw.com C ounsel for Defendants

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

Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY AND PRETRIAL v. DEADLINES C. R. BARD, INCORPORATED and BARD INCORPORATED,

Defendants.

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