Whipple v. C R Bard Incorporated

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedFebruary 16, 2022
Docket2:19-cv-01883
StatusUnknown

This text of Whipple v. C R Bard Incorporated (Whipple 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
Whipple v. C R Bard Incorporated, (D. Nev. 2022).

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 5 LORI G. COHEN, ESQ.* *Admitted Pro Hac Vice 6 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 3333 Piedmont Road NE, Suite 2500 7 Atlanta, Georgia 30305 Telephone: (678) 553-2385 8 Email: cohenl@gtlaw.com 9 CASEY SHPALL, ESQ.* GREGORY R. TAN, ESQ.* 10 *Admitted Pro Hac Vice GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 11 1144 15th Street, Suite 3300 Denver, Colorado 80202 12 Telephone: (303) 572-6500 Email: shpallc@gtlaw.com 13 tangr@gtlaw.com C. WADE BOWDEN, ESQ.* 14 *Admitted Pro Hac Vice GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 15 777 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 300 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 16 Telephone: (561) 650-7900 Email: bowdenw@gtlaw.com 17 18 Counsel for Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 20 TOBIE RAYCHELLE WHIPPLE and KURT CASE NO. 2:19-cv-01883-RFB-BNW 21 CHRISTENSEN, 22 STIPULATION TO EXTEND Plaintiffs, DISCOVERY AND PRE-TRIAL 23 DEADLINES v. 24 (SEVENTH REQUEST) C. R. BARD, INCORPORATED and BARD 25 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INCORPORATED, 26 Defendants. 27

28 1 Come now, Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (“Bard” or 2 “Defendants”) and Plaintiffs Tobie Raychelle Whipple (“Whipple”) and Kurt Christensen 3 (“Christensen”) (collectively, Whipple and Christensen are referred to as “Plaintiffs”), by and 4 through their undersigned counsel of record, pursuant to LR IA 6-2, and hereby stipulate that the 5 discovery deadlines are extended by sixty (60) days as detailed below. This stipulation is entered 6 into as a result of the following circumstances: 7 The parties have worked diligently to pursue all necessary discovery including inter alia: 8 preparation and service of plaintiff and defense fact sheets, accompanying documents, and 9 supplements thereto; the depositions of Ms. Whipple, Mr. Christensen, a Bard sales representative 10 (Ms. Cerissa Ferguson), and several of Plaintiff’s numerous medical providers; and the collection 11 and production of a significant volume of medical records (Ms. Whipple has an extensive and 12 complicated medical history). Despite the parties’ best efforts, all necessary discovery has not yet 13 been completed. 14 Obtaining medical records from and scheduling the deposition of one of Ms. Whipple’s 15 current and primary treating physicians, Dr. Dan Peterson of Sierra Internal Medicine, was 16 significantly delayed due to his being in a significant motor vehicle crash resulting in multiple injuries 17 including a severe concussion. As a result, Dr. Peterson missed at least one month of work which in 18 turn delayed testing and interpretation of results on the Plaintiff Tobie Whipple. Additionally, Dr. 19 Peterson had entered quarantine protocols due to COVID-19. Dr. Peterson's testing, interpretation, 20 diagnosis and treatment are critical in this matter, and he has arranged for Ms. Whipple to be seen by 21 specialist in a different field. Additionally, although he was scheduled to be deposed on January 28, 22 2022, that deposition is being postponed until after the parties’ expert disclosures are served given 23 that Dr. Peterson has been identified as a physician Plaintiffs intend to disclose as an expert witness. 24 Bard has actively worked to schedule – and in fact scheduled and begun taking - the 25 depositions of several other medical providers. Bard will likely need to depose the specialist to whom 26 Dr. Peterson has referred Ms. Whipple for additional evaluation. 27 Additionally, via written discovery Bard has sought copies of documents relating to Ms. 28 Whipple’s various disability claims (workers’ compensation, private disability and Social Security 1 Administration), and Plaintiffs have produced a number of responsive documents. However, the 2 production appears to be incomplete (through no fault of Plaintiffs). The parties are working together 3 to complete the receipt and production of those key documents relating to Ms. Whipple’s prior and 4 current medical conditions and their impact on her physical abilities. 5 Finally, Plaintiffs’ counsel who has been involved in the IVC filter litigation against Bard at 6 a national level for years, Ramon Lopez, Esq., has been recently undergoing significant and 7 physically-taxing medical treatment. As a result, his schedule has been impacted. 8 In light of the foregoing, the parties respectfully submit that good cause exists for this 9 extension. The parties must complete fact discovery, which has been hampered as noted above, in 10 order for their expert witnesses to appropriately complete their analyses and reports. The parties have 11 been diligent in conducting discovery to date. Additionally, the extension will allow the parties to 12 explore settlement discussions. 13 Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b) and 26, and the Court’s inherent authority 14 and discretion to manage its own docket, this Court has the authority to grant the requested extension. 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time the court may, for 16 good cause, extend the time...”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) (“A party or any person from whom discovery 17 is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending...The court may, 18 for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, 19 oppression, or undue burden or expense.”). Furthermore, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 20 26(d) vest the Court with authority to limit the scope of discovery or control its sequence. Crawford- 21 El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998) (“Rule 26 vests the trial judge with broad discretion to tailor 22 discovery narrowly and to dictate the sequence of discovery.”). 23 This Court has broad discretion to extend deadlines or stay proceedings as incidental to its 24 power to control its own docket – particularly where, as here, such action would promote judicial 25 economy and efficiency. Bacon v. Reyes, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143300, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 3, 2013) 26 (citing, Munoz-Santana v. U.S. I.N.S., 742 F.2d 561, 562 (9th Cir. 1984)) “Whether to grant a stay is 27 within the discretion of the court”); Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) 28 (“A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court.”); Landis v. N. Am. 1 || Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inheret 2 ||in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effo 3 || for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”). 4 The parties respectfully stipulate and request that this Court modify the Stipulated Discover 5 || Plan and Scheduling Order., Dkt. 56, as follows (modifications shown in bold):

7 January 17, 2020 Parties shall exchange Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures. y 8 Plaintiff shall include a list of medical providers for the period of time from ten years before placement of the Bard filter to the present.

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

Related

Landis v. North American Co.
299 U.S. 248 (Supreme Court, 1936)
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)
Whipple v. C R Bard Incorporated, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whipple-v-c-r-bard-incorporated-nvd-2022.