Womack v. C R Bard Incorporated

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 24, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01881
• 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 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 4 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 Email: swanise@gtlaw.com 5 CHRISTOPHER J. NEUMANN, ESQ. Admitted Pro Hac Vice 6 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1144 15th Street, Suite 3300 7 Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: (303) 572-6500 8 Email: neumannc@gtlaw.com 9 C ounsel for Defendants 10 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12

FOR THE DISTRI CT OF NEVADA 13 DANIELLE E. WOMACK, Case No. 2:19-cv-01881-JCM-BNW

14 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY AND ALL PRETRIAL 15 v. DEADLINES 16 (SECOND REQUEST) C. R. BARD, INCORPORATED and BARD 17 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INCORPORATED,

18 Defendants.

19 20 Plaintiff Danielle E. Womack (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard 21 Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (“Defendants” and collectively with Plaintiff, the 22 “Parties”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and (d) and LR IA 6-1, respectfully request that 23 this Court temporarily stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines, as set forth in the revised 24 Discovery Plan (Dkt. 38), until February 26, 2021 while the Parties finalize settlement 25 documents. In support thereof, the Parties state as follows: 26 1. This case was part of the Multi-District Litigation proceeding In re: Bard IVC 27 Filters Product Liability Litigation, pending before Senior Judge David Campbell of the 28 District of Arizona. 1 2. Plaintiff alleges experiencing complications following the implantation of a 2 Bard Inferior Vena Cava (“IVC”) filter, a prescription medical device. She has asserted three 3 strict products liability counts (manufacturing defect, information defect (failure to warn) and 4 design defect), six negligence counts (design, manufacture, failure to recall/retrofit, failure to 5 warn, negligent misrepresentation and negligence per se), two breach of warranty counts 6 (express and implied), two counts sounding in fraud (fraudulent misrepresentation and 7 fraudulent concealment), an unfair and deceptive trade practices count, and a claim for 8 punitive damages. 9 3. Defendants deny the allegations contained in the Complaint. 10 4. After four years, the completion of general issue discovery, and the conduct of 11 three bellwether trials, Judge Campbell ordered that cases, which were not settled or were not 12 close to settling, be transferred or remanded to the appropriate jurisdictions around the 13 country for case-specific discovery and trial. As a part of that process, he established a “track” 14 system, wherein certain cases were placed on tracks either to finalize settlement paperwork, 15 continue settlement negotiations, or be remanded or transferred. 16 5. This case was transferred to this Court on March 30, 2020 because at the time 17 it was not close to settling. But, since that date, the Parties have engaged in further 18 settlement discussions and have recently reached a settlement in principle. 19 6. Accordingly, the Parties request that this Court issue an order staying discovery 20 and pretrial deadlines until February 26, 2021 to allow the Parties time to finalize the 21 settlement. This will prevent unnecessary expenditures of the Parties and judicial resources as 22 well as place this case on a similar “track” as the MDL cases Judge Campbell determined 23 should continue settlement dialogue. 24 7. A district court has broad discretion over pretrial discovery rulings. Crawford- 25 El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); accord Republic of Ecuador v. Hinchee, 741 F.3d 26 1185, 1188-89 (11th Cir. 2013); Thermal Design, Inc. v. Am. Soc’y of Heating, Refrigerating 27 & Air-Conditioning Eng’rs, Inc., 755 F.3d 832, 837 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Cook 28 1 v. Kartridg Pak Co., 840 F.2d 602, 604 (8th Cir. 1988) (“A district court must be free to use 2 and control pretrial procedure in furtherance of the orderly administration of justice.”). 3 8. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d), a court may limit the 4 scope of discovery or control its sequence. Britton, 523 U.S. at 598. Although settlement 5 negotiations do not automatically excuse a party from its discovery obligations, the parties 6 can seek a stay prior to the cutoff date. Sofo v. Pan-Am. Life Ins. Co., 13 F.3d 239, 242 7 (7th Cir. 1994); see also Wichita Falls Office Assocs. v. Banc One Corp., 978 F.2d 915, 918 8 (5th Cir. 1993) (finding that a “trial judge’s decision to curtail discovery is granted great 9 deference,” and noting that the discovery had been pushed back a number of times because of 10 pending settlement negotiations). 11 9. Facilitating the efforts of parties to resolve their disputes weighs in favor of 12 granting a stay. In Coker v. Dowd, 2:13-cv-0994-JCM-NJK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201845, 13 at *2-3 (D. Nev. July 8, 2013), the parties requested a 60-day stay to facilitate ongoing 14 settlement negotiations and permit them to mediate global settlement. The Court granted the 15 stay, finding the parties would be prejudiced if required to move forward with discovery at 16 that time and a stay would potentially prevent an unnecessary complication in the case. Id. at 17 *3. Here, the Parties have reached a settlement in principle. 18 10. The Parties agree that the relief sought herein is necessary to handle the case in 19 the most economical fashion yet allow sufficient time to schedule and complete discovery if 20 necessary, consistent with the scheduling obligations of counsel. The relief sought in this 21 Motion is not being requested for delay, but so that justice may be done. 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendants respectfully request the Court’s approval ¢ 2 || this stipulation to stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines until February 26, 2021 to allo 3 || the Parties to conduct ongoing settlement negotiations. 4 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 5 Respectfully submitted on November 20, 2020. 6 7 || DALIMONTE RUEB STOLLER, LLP GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 8 By: /s/ Gregory D. Rueb By: /s/ Eric W. Swanis 9 GREGORY D. RUEB, ESQ. ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. Admitted Pro Hac Vice Nevada Bar No. 6840 10 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1550 10845 Griffith Peak Drive ll Los Angeles, California 90071 Suite 600 greg(@drlawllp.com Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 12 13 BRIAN D. NETTLES, ESQ. CHRISTOPHER NEUMANN, ESQ NETTLES MORRIS Admitted Pro Hac Vice 14 1389 Galleria Drive, Suite 200 1144 15th Street, Suite 3300 Henderson, Nevada 89014 Denver, Colorado 80202 g a5 15 brian@nettlesmorris.com Email: neumannc@gtlaw.com 16 The parties’ stipulation is GRANTED. However, given the length of the discovery stay IT 17 || IS ORDERED that on January 11, 2021, defendants must file a status report informing the Court whether negotiations are still ongoing and whether the discovery stay 18 || continues to facilitate settlement. The discovery stay will continue unabated until further 19 court action. IT IS SO ORDERED 20 DATED: 12:40 pm, November 24, 2020 21 22 Gra Lea wre Eee, 23 BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDG 24 25 26 27 28