Mosier v. C R Bard Inc et al

Filing 40

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/10/2020 GRANTING the parties #37 Joint Motion to Stay Discovery and Pretrial Deadlines for 90 days after entry of this order to allow the parties to conduct ongoing settlement negotiations. (Tupolo, A) Modified on 9/10/2020 (Krueger, M).

1 Shawtina F. Lewis (SBN 259255)
[e-mail]
2 NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH LLP
3 19191 South Vermont Avenue, Suite 900
Torrance, CA 90502
4 Telephone:
424.221.7400
Facsimile:
424.221.7499
5
Attorneys for Defendants
6 C. R. Bard, Inc. and
7 Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

N ELSON M ULLINS R ILEY & S CA RBOROUGH
A TTORNEYS AT L A W
L OS A NGELES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
LLP

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

VANDLEAN MOSIER,

11
12

Case No.: 2:20-cv-01767-TLN-EFB

Plaintiff,
JOINT MOTION TO STAY
DISCOVERY AND ALL PRETRIAL
DEADLINES & ORDER

v.

13

C. R. BARD INC., and
14 BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC.,
15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND ALL PRETRIAL DEADLINES & ORDER

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and (d), Plaintiff in the above-titled

2

action and Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (collectively, “Bard”)

3

(Plaintiff and Bard are collectively referred to herein as “the Parties”), respectfully request that

4

this Court temporarily stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines and continue the initial Scheduling

5

Conference in this case for 90 days after entry of the [Proposed] Order while the Parties pursue

6

settlement discussions. In support thereof, the Parties state as follows:

7

1.

This case was originally filed in the State Court of Dallas County, Texas, by a Texas

N ELSON M ULLINS R ILEY & S CA RBOROUGH
A TTORNEYS AT L A W
L OS A NGELES

resident serving as lead plaintiff, and joined multiple individual plaintiffs, including the instant

9
LLP

8

plaintiff. The case was subsequently removed by Bard to the United States District Court for the

10
11

Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.
2.

On August 31, 2020, the Court issued an Order granting the lead plaintiff’s

12

Unopposed Motion to Sever and Transfer Venue of Out-of-State Plaintiff’s Cases, and the case

13

was transferred to this District and assigned to this Court. [Doc. 26].

14

3.

Since before the transfer of the instant case from the Northern District of Texas,

15

Dallas Division, to this District, the Parties have been engaging in serious settlement discussions.

16

Accordingly, the Parties jointly move this Court for an order staying discovery and pretrial

17

deadlines and continuing the initial Scheduling Conference in this case for 90 days after entry of

18

the [Proposed] Order to allow the Parties to continue to engage in settlement discussions. This will

19

further facilitate settlement discussions and prevent unnecessary expenditures of the parties and

20

judicial resources.

21

4.

A district court has broad discretion over pretrial discovery rulings. See, e.g.,

22

Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); accord Thermal Design, Inc. v. Am. Soc’y of

23

Heating, Refrigerating & Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 755 F.3d 832, 837 (7th Cir. 2014);

24

Burns v. EGS Fin. Care, Inc., No. 4:15-CV-06173-DGK, 2016 WL 7535365 at *1 (W.D. Mo. Apr.

25

12, 2016); see also Cook v. Kartridg Pak Co., 840 F.2d 602, 604 (8th Cir. 1988) (“A district court

26

must be free to use and control pretrial procedure in furtherance of the orderly administration of

27

justice.”); see also CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (district courts possess

28
1
JOINT MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND ALL PRETRIAL DEADLINES & ORDER

1

“inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket in a manner which will

2

promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”).

3

5.

Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d), a court may limit the scope

negotiations do not automatically excuse a party from its discovery obligations, the parties can

6

seek a stay prior to the cutoff date. See Sofo v. Pan-American Life Ins. Co., 13 F.3d 239, 242 (7th

7

Cir. 1994); Wichita Falls Office Assocs. V. Banc One Corp., 978 F.2d 915, 918 (5th Cir. 1993)

8

(finding that a “trial judge’s decision to curtail discovery is granted great deference,” and noting

9
N ELSON M ULLINS R ILEY & S CA RBOROUGH
A TTORNEYS AT L A W
L OS A NGELES

of discovery or control its sequence.

5

LLP

4

that the discovery had been pushed back a number of times because of pending settlement

10

See Britton, 523 U.S. at 598.

Although settlement

negotiations).

11

6.

The Parties agree that the relief sought herein is necessary to handle the case in the

12

most economical fashion, yet allow sufficient time to schedule and complete discovery if

13

necessary, consistent with the scheduling obligations of counsel. The relief sought in this Motion

14

is not being requested for delay, but so that justice may be done.

15

WHEREFORE, The Parties jointly request that discovery and all pretrial deadlines be

16

stayed and that the initial Scheduling Conference be continued for 90 days after entry of the

17

[Proposed] Order to allow the Parties to conduct ongoing settlement negotiations.

18

[Signatures on the following page]

19

//

20

//

21

//

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
2
JOINT MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND ALL PRETRIAL DEADLINES & ORDER

1
DATED: September 10, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

2
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
3
4

/s/ Shawtina F. Lewis
Shawtina F. Lewis (SBN 259255)
19191 South Vermont Avenue, Suite 900
Torrance, CA 90502
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 424.221.7499
[e-mail]
Attorney for Defendants
C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

5
6
7
8

N ELSON M ULLINS R ILEY & S CA RBOROUGH
A TTORNEYS AT L A W
L OS A NGELES

LLP

9
DATED: September 10, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

10
FEARS NACHAWATI LAW FIRM
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

/s/ Arati Furness (as authorized on 9/8/2020)
Arati Furness, CA Bar No. 225435
(admitted in EDCA)
Steven S. Schulte
Texas Bar No. 24051306
Eric M. Przybysz
Darren McDowell
5473 Blair Road
Dallas, Texas 75231
T: [phone]/F: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
JOINT MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND ALL PRETRIAL DEADLINES & ORDER

1

ORDER

2

Upon consideration of the Parties’ JOINT MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND

3

PRETRIAL DEADLINES, and for good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the

4

Parties’ Motion is GRANTED, and discovery and all pretrial deadlines are hereby stayed and

5

extended and that the initial Scheduling Conference is continued for 90 days to allow the Parties

6

to conduct ongoing settlement negotiations.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

N ELSON M ULLINS R ILEY & S CA RBOROUGH
A TTORNEYS AT L A W
L OS A NGELES

LLP

9
10
11

DATED: September 10, 2020
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
JOINT MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND ALL PRETRIAL DEADLINES & ORDER