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