McCown v. C R Bard Incorporated

D. Nevada

McCown v. C R Bard Incorporated

DecidedMarch 12, 2021

Docket2:20-cv-00603

StatusUnknown

This text of McCown v. C R Bard Incorporated (McCown 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

McCown v. C R Bard Incorporated, (D. Nev. 2021).

Pincite

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 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 4 || Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 Email: swanise@gtlaw.com > || CASEY SHPALL, ESQ.* 6 *Admitted Pro Hac Vice GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 7 1144 15" Street, Suite 3300 Denver, Colorado 80202 8 Telephone: (303) 572-6500 Email: shpallc@gtlaw.com 9 || Counsel for Defendants 10 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 13 || RANDALL MCCOWN, CASE NO. 2:20-cv-00603-RFB-BNW ars 14 Plaintiffs, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STA £45 DISCOVERY AND ALL PRETRIAL v. DEADLINES 16 (FIRST REQUEST) C. R. BARD, INC.; BARD PERIPHERAL 17 |} VASCULAR, INCORPORATED, 1 8 Defendants. 19 20 Plaintiff Randall McCown (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Periphera 21 || Vascular, Inc. “Defendants” and collectively with Plaintiff, the “Parties”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ 22 ||P. 26(c) and (d) and LR JA 6-1, respectfully request that this Court temporarily stay discovery an 23 |j}all pretrial deadlines, as set forth in the Discovery Plan (Dkt. 24), until June 10, 2021 while th 24 || Parties finalize settlement. In support thereof, the Parties state as follows: 25 |\/// 26 \\/// 27 WW/// 28 ||/// 7.

1 1. This case was part of the Multi-District Litigation proceeding Jn re: Bard IVC Filter 2 || Product Liability Litigation, pending before Senior Judge David Campbell of the District o 3 || Arizona. 4 2. Plaintiff alleges experiencing complications following the implantation of a Bar 5 || Inferior Vena Cava (“IVC”) filter, a prescription medical device. He has asserted three strict product 6 || liability counts (manufacturing defect, information defect (failure to warn) and design defect), si 7 ||negligence counts (design, manufacture, failure to recall/retrofit, failure to warn, negligen 8 || misrepresentation and negligence per se), two breach of warranty counts (express and implied), tw 9 || counts sounding in fraud (fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment), and a claim fo 10 || punitive damages. 11 3. Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations. 12 4, After four years, the completion of general issue discovery, and the conduct of thre 13 || bellwether trials, Judge Campbell ordered that cases, which were not settled or were not close t a 14 ||settling, be transferred or remanded to the appropriate jurisdictions around the country for case g 15 || specific discovery and trial. As a part of that process, he established a “track” system, wherein □□□□□□□ 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 wa 19 || not close to settling. But, since that date, the Parties have engaged in further settlement discussion 20 || and have reached a global settlement in principle of this and other cases involving Bard Inferior Ven. 21 || Cava filters that have been filed across the nation, and a settlement agreement is in place. The Partie 22 || have been working diligently and in good faith to finalize all terms and payments pursuant to tha 23 || settlement. 24 6. The Parties report that they continue to work diligently toward finalizing th 25 settlement by working to obtain releases and resolve liens, but due to complexity and volume, the: 26 || anticipate that completion of the settlement process will take approximately 90 days. Accordingly 27 || the Parties request a 90-day extension of the stay in this matter. 28 |}/// Fy

1 7. The Parties are waiting on final paperwork from this Plaintiff and many others, t 2 || complete the settlement process. 3 8. Neither party will be prejudiced by this extension and this will prevent unnecessar 4 || expenditures of the Parties and of judicial resources. 5 9. Accordingly, the Parties request that this Court issue an order staying discovery an 6 || pretrial deadlines until June 10, 2021 to allow the Parties time to finalize settlement. This wil 7 || prevent unnecessary expenditures of the Parties and judicial resources as well as place this case □□ 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-E] \ 10 || Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); accord Republic of Ecuador v. Hinchee, 741 F.3d 1185, 1188-8! 11 || (11th Cir. 2013); Thermal Design, Inc. v. Am. Soc’y of Heating, Refrigerating & Air-Conditionin; 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 □□□□□□□□□□□□ a 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 scop 16 || of discovery or control its sequence. Britton, 523 U.S. at 598. Although settlement negotiations di 17 not automatically excuse a party from its discovery obligations, the parties can seek a stay prior t 18 the cutoff date. Sofo v. Pan-Am. Life Ins. Co., 13 F.3d 239, 242 (7th Cir. 1994); see also Wichit 19 || Falls Office Assocs. v. Bane One Corp., 978 F.2d 915, 918 (Sth Cir. 1993) (finding that a “tria 20 judge’s decision to curtail discovery is granted great deference,” and noting that the discovery ha 21 || been 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 grantin: 23 ||astay. 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 an: 25 || permit them to mediate global settlement. The Court granted the stay, finding the parties would b 26 || prejudiced if required to move forward with discovery at that time and a stay would potentiall 27 ||prevent an unnecessary complication in the case. /d. at *3. Here, the Parties have reached . 28 settlement 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 thi 4 || matter. 5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendants respectfully request the Court’s approval of thi 6 || stipulation to stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines until June 10, 2021 to allow the Parties t 7 || finalize settlement. 8 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 9 Dated this 2" day of March 2021. 10 1] LAW OFFICES OF DONALD G. NORRIS, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP A LAW CORPORATION

22 3 By: _/s/Donald G. Norris By: _/s/Eric W. Swanis Bee DONALD G. NORRIS, ESQ.* ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. “88 14 *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Nevada Bar No. 6840 dnorrislaw@gmail.com swanise@gtlaw.com ge 45 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 980 10845 Griffith Peak Drive Los Angeles, California 90010 Suite 600 16 Tel: (213) 487-8880 Las Vegas, NV 89135 CRAIG DRUMMOND, ESQ. 17 Nevada Bar No.

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

1 |] ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6840 2 || GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600 3 || Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 4 || Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 Email: swanise@gtlaw.com > || CASEY SHPALL, ESQ.* 6 *Admitted Pro Hac Vice GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 7 1144 15" Street, Suite 3300 Denver, Colorado 80202 8 Telephone: (303) 572-6500 Email: shpallc@gtlaw.com 9 || Counsel for Defendants 10 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 13 || RANDALL MCCOWN, CASE NO. 2:20-cv-00603-RFB-BNW ars 14 Plaintiffs, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STA £45 DISCOVERY AND ALL PRETRIAL v. DEADLINES 16 (FIRST REQUEST) C. R. BARD, INC.; BARD PERIPHERAL 17 |} VASCULAR, INCORPORATED, 1 8 Defendants. 19 20 Plaintiff Randall McCown (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Periphera 21 || Vascular, Inc. “Defendants” and collectively with Plaintiff, the “Parties”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ 22 ||P. 26(c) and (d) and LR JA 6-1, respectfully request that this Court temporarily stay discovery an 23 |j}all pretrial deadlines, as set forth in the Discovery Plan (Dkt. 24), until June 10, 2021 while th 24 || Parties finalize settlement. In support thereof, the Parties state as follows: 25 |\/// 26 \\/// 27 WW/// 28 ||/// 7.

1 1. This case was part of the Multi-District Litigation proceeding Jn re: Bard IVC Filter 2 || Product Liability Litigation, pending before Senior Judge David Campbell of the District o 3 || Arizona. 4 2. Plaintiff alleges experiencing complications following the implantation of a Bar 5 || Inferior Vena Cava (“IVC”) filter, a prescription medical device. He has asserted three strict product 6 || liability counts (manufacturing defect, information defect (failure to warn) and design defect), si 7 ||negligence counts (design, manufacture, failure to recall/retrofit, failure to warn, negligen 8 || misrepresentation and negligence per se), two breach of warranty counts (express and implied), tw 9 || counts sounding in fraud (fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment), and a claim fo 10 || punitive damages. 11 3. Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations. 12 4, After four years, the completion of general issue discovery, and the conduct of thre 13 || bellwether trials, Judge Campbell ordered that cases, which were not settled or were not close t a 14 ||settling, be transferred or remanded to the appropriate jurisdictions around the country for case g 15 || specific discovery and trial. As a part of that process, he established a “track” system, wherein □□□□□□□ 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 wa 19 || not close to settling. But, since that date, the Parties have engaged in further settlement discussion 20 || and have reached a global settlement in principle of this and other cases involving Bard Inferior Ven. 21 || Cava filters that have been filed across the nation, and a settlement agreement is in place. The Partie 22 || have been working diligently and in good faith to finalize all terms and payments pursuant to tha 23 || settlement. 24 6. The Parties report that they continue to work diligently toward finalizing th 25 settlement by working to obtain releases and resolve liens, but due to complexity and volume, the: 26 || anticipate that completion of the settlement process will take approximately 90 days. Accordingly 27 || the Parties request a 90-day extension of the stay in this matter. 28 |}/// Fy

1 7. The Parties are waiting on final paperwork from this Plaintiff and many others, t 2 || complete the settlement process. 3 8. Neither party will be prejudiced by this extension and this will prevent unnecessar 4 || expenditures of the Parties and of judicial resources. 5 9. Accordingly, the Parties request that this Court issue an order staying discovery an 6 || pretrial deadlines until June 10, 2021 to allow the Parties time to finalize settlement. This wil 7 || prevent unnecessary expenditures of the Parties and judicial resources as well as place this case □□ 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-E] \ 10 || Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); accord Republic of Ecuador v. Hinchee, 741 F.3d 1185, 1188-8! 11 || (11th Cir. 2013); Thermal Design, Inc. v. Am. Soc’y of Heating, Refrigerating & Air-Conditionin; 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 □□□□□□□□□□□□ a 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 scop 16 || of discovery or control its sequence. Britton, 523 U.S. at 598. Although settlement negotiations di 17 not automatically excuse a party from its discovery obligations, the parties can seek a stay prior t 18 the cutoff date. Sofo v. Pan-Am. Life Ins. Co., 13 F.3d 239, 242 (7th Cir. 1994); see also Wichit 19 || Falls Office Assocs. v. Bane One Corp., 978 F.2d 915, 918 (Sth Cir. 1993) (finding that a “tria 20 judge’s decision to curtail discovery is granted great deference,” and noting that the discovery ha 21 || been 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 grantin: 23 ||astay. 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 an: 25 || permit them to mediate global settlement. The Court granted the stay, finding the parties would b 26 || prejudiced if required to move forward with discovery at that time and a stay would potentiall 27 ||prevent an unnecessary complication in the case. /d. at *3. Here, the Parties have reached . 28 settlement 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 thi 4 || matter. 5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendants respectfully request the Court’s approval of thi 6 || stipulation to stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines until June 10, 2021 to allow the Parties t 7 || finalize settlement. 8 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 9 Dated this 2" day of March 2021. 10 1] LAW OFFICES OF DONALD G. NORRIS, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP A LAW CORPORATION

22 3 By: _/s/Donald G. Norris By: _/s/Eric W. Swanis Bee DONALD G. NORRIS, ESQ.* ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. “88 14 *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Nevada Bar No. 6840 dnorrislaw@gmail.com swanise@gtlaw.com ge 45 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 980 10845 Griffith Peak Drive Los Angeles, California 90010 Suite 600 16 Tel: (213) 487-8880 Las Vegas, NV 89135 CRAIG DRUMMOND, ESQ. 17 Nevada Bar No. 11109 Counsel for Defendants craig@drummondfirm.com 18 DRUMMOND LAW FIRM, PC 810 Casino Center Blvd., Suite 101 19 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Tel: (702) 366-9966 20 54 Counsel for Plaintiff 22 53 IT IS SO ORDERED.

24 25 RICHA LWARE, I United States District Court 27 DATED this 12th day of March, 2021. 28 ya

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on March 2, 2021, I caused the foregoing document to be □□□□□□□□□□□□□ 3 || filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of suc! 4 || filing to the CM/ECF participants registered to receive such service. 5 6 7 /s/_Shermielynn Irasga 8 An employee of GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 9 10 11 12 13

E45 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

McCown v. C R Bard Incorporated, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccown-v-c-r-bard-incorporated-nvd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack