Scholer v. C R Bard Incorporated

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 23, 2019
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01568
• Status: Unknown

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 4 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 5 Email: swanise@gtlaw.com

6 Counsel for Defendants 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 0

FOR THE DISTRI CT OF NEVADA 11 JOSEPH H. SCHOLER, CASE NO. 2:19-cv-01568-KJD-BNW

12 Plaintiff, 13 JOINT MOTION TO STAY v. DISCOVERY AND ALL PRETRIAL 14 DEADLINES C. R. BARD, INCORPORATED and BARD

15 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, (FIRST REQUEST) INCORPORATED, 16

17 Defendants. 18

19 Plaintiff Joseph H. Scholer (“Plaintiff”), Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard 20 Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (“Bard”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and (d), respectfully 21 request that this Court temporarily stay discovery until November 30, 2019 while the Parties 22 pursue settlement discussions. In support thereof, the Parties state as follows: 23 1. This case was part of a Multi-District Litigation proceeding called In re: Bard 24 IVC Filter Litigation, pending before Senior Judge David Campbell of the District of Arizona. 25 2. After four years, the completion of general issue discovery, and conducting 26 three bellwether trials, Judge Campbell has ordered that cases, which have not settled or are 27 not close to settling, be transferred to the appropriate jurisdictions around the country for case- 28 specific discovery and trial. As a part of that process, he established a “track” system, wherein 1 certain cases were placed on tracks either to finalize settlement paperwork, continue 2 settlement negotiations, or be remanded or transferred. 3 3. Plaintiff’s counsel recently notified Defense counsel that this case was placed 4 on an incorrect “track” and thus inadvertently remanded and transferred, even though 5 settlement discussions are ongoing. 6 4. A district court has broad discretion over pretrial discovery rulings. Crawford- 7 El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th 8 Cir. 1985) (“[t]he district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of 9 litigation”); Johnston v. Gedney, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127392, at *7 (D. Nev. July 30, 2019) 10 (same); RH Kids, LLC v. Lehman, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17811, at *3 (D. Nev. Jan. 3, 2018) 11 (granting a stay of the proceedings) (“[f]ederal district courts have ‘wide discretion in 12 controlling discovery’”) (quoting, Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)); 13 Evanston Ins. Co. v. W. Cmty. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136129, at *5 (D. Nev. 14 Sept. 25, 2014) (“[t]he Court has inherent power to control its docket, including the discretion 15 to stay proceedings”) (citing, Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55, 57 S. Ct. 163, 81 16 L. Ed. 153 (1936)). 17 5. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d), a court may limit the 18 scope of discovery or control its sequence. Britton, 523 U.S. at 598. Although settlement 19 negotiations do not automatically excuse a party from its discovery obligations, the parties 20 can seek a stay of discovery prior to a deadline. Lair v. Bullock, 697 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th 21 Cir. 2012) (discussing the court’s discretion in exercising a stay); Bacon v. Reyes, 2013 U.S. 22 Dist. LEXIS 143300, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 3, 2013) (“[w]hether to grant a stay is within the 23 discretion of the court”) (citing, Munoz-Santana v. U.S. I.N.S., 742 F.2d 561, 562 (9th Cir. 24 1984)). 25 6. Thus, the Parties jointly move this Court for an order staying discovery until 26 November 30, 2019 to allow the parties to continue to engage in settlement discussions. This 27 will further facilitate settlement discussions and prevent unnecessary expenditures of the 28 parties and judicial resources. 1 7. The Parties agree that the relief sought herein is necessary to handle the case in 2 the most economical fashion, yet allow sufficient time to schedule and complete discovery if 3 necessary, consistent with the scheduling obligations of counsel. The relief sought in this 4 Motion is not purely for delay, but so that justice may be done. 5 WHEREFORE, the Parties jointly request that discovery and all pre-trial deadlines be 6 stayed until November 30, 2019 to allow the parties to conduct ongoing settlement 7 negotiations. 8 DATED this 18TH day of September, 2019. 9 DUDLEY LAW FIRM LLC GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

11 By: /s/ Elizabeth Dudley By: /s/ Eric W. Swanis Elizabeth Dudley, Esq. ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. 12 Kansas Bar No. 21582 Nevada Bar No. 6840 23438 SW Pilot Point Road 10845 Griffith Peak Drive 13 Douglass, Kansas 67039 Suite 600 Telephone: (316) 746-3969 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 14 Facsimile: (316)746-3922 Telephone: (702) 792,3773 liz@lizdudleylaw.com Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 15

16 Counsel for Plaintiff Counsel for Defendants, C. R. Bard, Inc., and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on September 18, 2019, I caused the foregoing document to t 3 || electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will sen 4 || notification of such filing to the CM/ECF participants registered to receive such service, an 5 ||I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the document to th 6 || following non-ECF participants: 7 Elizabeth Dudley, Esq. g Kansas Bar No. 21582 DUDLEY LAW FIRM LLC 9 23438 SW Pilot Point Road Douglass, Kansas 67039 10 Telephone: (316) 746-3969 ll Facsimile: (316)746-3922 liz@lizdudleylaw.com 12 Counsel for Plaintiff

14 /s/_Evelyn Escobar-Gaddi An employee of GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 15 16 Based on the parties' stipulation, IT IS ORDERED that 17 discovery is stayed until 11/30/2019 pending the parties' 18 settlement discussions. IT IS Dated: 9/23/19 B ae la Ur® 19 FURTHER ORDERED that the Brenda Weksler parties must file a joint status United States Magistrate Judge 20 report by 12/13/2019. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28