Sekuler v. C R Bard Incorporated
This text of Sekuler v. C R Bard Incorporated (Sekuler 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.
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 CHRISTOPHER J. NEUMANN, ESQ.* CANDACE H. UDUEBOR, ESQ.* 8 *Admitted Pro Hac Vice GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 9 1144 15th Street, Suite 3300 Denver, Colorado 80202 10 Telephone: (303) 572-6500 Email: neumannc@gtlaw.com 11 udueborc@gtlaw.com
12 Counsel for Defendants
13 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 FOR THE DISTRI CT OF NEVADA 16 SUZANNE SEKULER, CASE NO. 2:19-cv-01585-KJD-BNW
17 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY CASE 18 v. 19 (FIRST REQUEST) C. R. BARD, INC.; BARD PERIPHERAL 20 VASCULAR, INCORPORATED,
21 Defendants. 22 23 Plaintiff Suzanne Sekuler (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral 24 Vascular, Inc. (“Defendants” and collectively with Plaintiff, the “Parties”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 26(c) and (d) and LR IA 6-2, respectfully request that this Court temporarily stay discovery and all 26 pretrial deadlines until June 30, 2021 while the Parties pursue settlement. In support thereof, the 27 Parties state as follows: 28 / / / 1 1. This case was part of the Multi-District Litigation proceeding In re: Bard IVC Filters 2 Product Liability Litigation, pending before Senior Judge David Campbell of the District of Arizona. 3 2. Plaintiff alleges experiencing complications following the implantation of a Bard Inferior 4 Vena Cava (“IVC”) filter, a prescription medical device. She has asserted three strict products liability 5 counts (manufacturing defect, information defect (failure to warn) and design defect), six negligence 6 counts (design, manufacture, failure to recall/retrofit, failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation and 7 negligence per se), two breach of warranty counts (express and implied), two counts sounding in fraud 8 (fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment), an unfair and deceptive trade practices count, 9 and a claim for punitive damages. 10 3. Defendants deny the Plaintiff’s allegations. 11 4. After four years, the completion of general issue discovery, and three bellwether trials, 12 Judge Campbell ordered that certain cases, which have not settled or are not close to settling, be 13 transferred or remanded to the appropriate jurisdictions around the country for case-specific discovery 14 and trial. As a part of that process, he established a “track” system, wherein certain cases were placed 15 on tracks either to finalize settlement paperwork, continue settlement negotiations, or be remanded or 16 transferred. 17 5. This case was transferred to this Court on June 1, 2017 because at the time it was not close 18 to settling. Recently, the Parties have begun settlement discussions and are scheduling a global mediation 19 as to all of Plaintiff’s counsel’s IVC filter cases in June 2021. The Parties believe that a stay is necessary 20 to conserve their resources and attention so that they may attempt to resolve this case and those of the 21 other plaintiffs represented by Plaintiff’s counsel with cases pending before this Court. 22 6. Accordingly, the Parties request that this Court issue an order staying discovery and 23 pretrial deadlines until June 30, 2021 to allow the Parties time to continue their settlement discussions 24 and attend mediation in June if still necessary. This will further facilitate settlement discussions, prevent 25 unnecessary expenditures by the Parties, and conserve judicial resources as well as place this case on a 26 similar “track” as the MDL cases Judge Campbell determined should continue settlement dialogue. 27 7. A district court has broad discretion over pretrial discovery rulings. Crawford-El v. 28 Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); accord, Republic of Ecuador v. Hinchee, 741 F.3d 1185, 1188-89 1 (11th Cir. 2013); Thermal Design, Inc. v. Am. Soc’y of Heating, Refrigerating & Air-Conditioning 2 Engineers, Inc., 755 F.3d 832, 837 (7th Cir. 2014); see also, Cook v. Kartridg Pak Co., 840 F.2d 602, 604 3 (8th Cir. 1988) (“A district court must be free to use and control pretrial procedure in furtherance of the 4 orderly administration of justice.”). 5 8. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d), a court may limit the scope of 6 discovery or control its sequence. Britton, 523 U.S. at 598. Although settlement negotiations do not 7 automatically excuse a party from its discovery obligations, the parties can seek a stay prior to the cutoff 8 date. Sofo v. Pan-American Life Ins. Co., 13 F.3d 239, 242 (7th Cir. 1994); see also, Wichita Falls Office 9 Assocs. V. Banc One Corp., 978 F.2d 915, 918 (5th Cir. 1993) (finding that a “trial judge’s decision to 10 curtail discovery is granted great deference,” and noting that the discovery had been pushed back a 11 number of times because of pending settlement negotiations). 12 9. Facilitating the efforts of parties to resolve their disputes weighs in favor of granting a 13 stay. In Coker v. Dowd, 2:13-cv-0994-JCM-NJK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201845, at *2-3 (D. Nev. July 14 8, 2013), the parties requested a 60-day stay to facilitate ongoing settlement negotiations and permit them 15 to mediate global settlement. The Court granted the stay, finding the parties would be prejudiced if 16 required to move forward with discovery at that time and a stay would potentially prevent an unnecessary 17 complication in the case. Id. at *3. Similarly, the Parties in the present case are engaged in ongoing 18 comprehensive settlement negotiations with Plaintiff and the other plaintiffs represented by Plaintiff’s 19 counsel and plan to mediate these cases in June 2021. 20 10. The Parties agree that the relief sought herein is necessary to handle the case in the most 21 economical fashion yet allow sufficient time to schedule and complete discovery if necessary, consistent 22 with the scheduling obligations of counsel. The relief sought in this stipulation is not being requested for 23 delay, but so that justice may be done. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendants respectfully request the Court’s approval of this 2|| stipulation to stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines until June 30, 2021 to allow the Parties to conduct 3|| ongoing settlement negotiations and mediation. 4 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 5 Dated this 22" day of February 2021. 6 WETHERALL GROUP, LTD. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 7 By: /s/ Peter C. Wetherall By: /s/Eric W. Swanis 8 PETER C. WETHERALL, ESQ. ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 4414 Nevada Bar No. 6840 9 pwetherall@wetherallgroup.com swanise@gtlaw.com 1 9345 W. Sunset Road, Suite 100 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Ste. 600 0 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 1 Telephone: (702) 838-8500 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 837-5081 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 12 Counsel for Plaintiff Counsel for Defendants 13 14 1S IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 dG ~~ 17 AY — > KENT J.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Sekuler v. C R Bard Incorporated, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sekuler-v-c-r-bard-incorporated-nvd-2021.