Singer v. C R Bard Incorporated

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedFebruary 16, 2021
Docket2:19-cv-01579
StatusUnknown

This text of Singer v. C R Bard Incorporated (Singer 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
Singer v. C R Bard Incorporated, (D. Nev. 2021).

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 meier@gtlaw.com

7 CASEY SHPALL, ESQ.* GREGORY R. TAN, ESQ.* 8 *Admitted Pro Hac Vice GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 9 1144 15th Street, Suite 3300 Denver, Colorado 80202 10 Telephone: (303) 572-6500 Email: shpallc@gtlaw.com 11 tangr@gtlaw.com

12 C ounsel for Defendants 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 FOR THE DISTRI CT OF NEVADA 15 ROBERT SINGER, CASE NO. 2:19-cv-01579-JCM-BNW

16 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER] EXTENDING DISCOVERY 17 v. DEADLINES FOR LIMITED PURPOSES 18 C. R. BARD, INC.; BARD PERIPHERAL (FIRST REQUEST) 19 VASCULAR, INCORPORATED,

20 Defendants. 21 22 COME NOW Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (“Bard” or 23 “Defendants”) and Plaintiff ROBERT SINGER (“Plaintiff”), by and through their undersigned counsel 24 of record, pursuant to LR IA 6-1, and hereby stipulate that the discovery deadlines be extended for the 25 limited purpose of allowing the depositions of Plaintiff’s disclosed family and friend witnesses as well 26 as Defendants’ applicable territory and/or district managers as outlined below. This is the first request 27 for extension of discovery deadlines for this limited purpose. 28 / / / 1 The parties have engaged in settlement discussions, have conducted written discovery, and are 2 now in the process of deposing fact witnesses. Plaintiff has been deposed. His treating physicians have 3 also been deposed or will be deposed within the deadline set by the Stipulated Discovery Plan and 4 Scheduling Order, Dkt. 40. However, in an effort to conserve the resources of the Parties and to facilitate 5 settlement discussions, the Parties have agreed to reserve the right to take the depositions of Plaintiff’s 6 disclosed family and friend witnesses, as well as Defendants’ applicable territory and district managers, 7 until no later than thirty (30) days before trial is scheduled to begin. 8 Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b) and 26, and the Court’s inherent authority and 9 discretion to manage its own docket, this Court has the authority to grant the requested extension. Fed. 10 R. Civ. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time the court may, for good cause, 11 extend the time....”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) (“A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may 12 move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending . . . The court may, for good cause, 13 issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden 14 or expense.”). Furthermore, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d) vest the Court with 15 authority to limit the scope of discovery or control its sequence. Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 16 598 (1998) (“Rule 26 vests the trial judge with broad discretion to tailor discovery narrowly and to dictate 17 the sequence of discovery.”). 18 This Court therefore has broad discretion to extend deadlines or stay proceedings as incidental to 19 its power to control its own docket – particularly where, as here, such action would promote judicial 20 economy and efficiency. Bacon v. Reyes, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143300, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 3, 2013) 21 (citing, Munoz-Santana v. U.S. I.N.S., 742 F.2d 561, 562 (9th Cir. 1984)) (“Whether to grant a stay is 22 within the discretion of the court”); Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A 23 district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court.”); Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 24 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court 25 to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 26 counsel, and for litigants.”). 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 For the foregoing reasons, the parties stipulate and respectfully request that this Court modify the 2 Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, Dkt. 40, as follows (requested modifications are 3 bolded): 4 5 PROPOSED DATE DEADLINE 6 Case-specific fact discovery closes with the exception of depositions March 8, 2021 of Plaintiff’s disclosed family and friend witnesses and 7 Defendants’ applicable territory and district managers (which shall be taken no later than 30 days before trial is scheduled to 8 begin). 9 April 5, 2021 The Plaintiff shall produce case-specific expert reports. 10 The Defendants shall produce case-specific expert reports. May 3, 2021 11 The Plaintiff shall produce any case-specific rebuttal expert reports. May 31, 2021 12 T he Defendants shall produce any case-specific rebuttal expert reports. June 28, 2021 13 Deadline to depose the Plaintiff’s case-specific experts. July 26, 2021 14 Deadline to depose the Defendants’ case-specific experts. August 23, 2021 15 Deadline to file Daubert motions and other dispositive motions. September 20, 2021 16

17 / / / 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 2 Dated this 12™ day of February 2021. 3 WETHERALL GROUP, LTD. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 4 By: /s/ Peter C. Wetherall By: /s/Eric W. Swanis 5 PETER C. WETHERALL, ESQ. ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 4414 Nevada Bar No. 6840 6 pwetherall@wetherallgroup.com swanise@gtlaw.com 9345 W. Sunset Road, Suite 100 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Ste. 600 7 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 838-8500 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 8 Facsimile: (702) 837-5081 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 9 Counsel for Plaintiff Counsel for Defendants 10 ORDER 11 IT IS ORDERED that the parties' stipulation is GRANTED. To the extent the excepted 12 depositions are necessary for either party's summary judgment briefing, the excepted depositions must be taken prior to the deadline for dispositive motions. IT ISSO ORDERED DATED: 5:36 pm, February 16, 2021 15 16 Gra Les Aree . 7 BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

Related

Perkins v. Hart
24 U.S. 237 (Supreme Court, 1826)
Crawford-El v. Britton
523 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Lockyer v. Mirant Corp.
398 F.3d 1098 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Singer v. C R Bard Incorporated, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singer-v-c-r-bard-incorporated-nvd-2021.