Schmaltz v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation

Filing 83

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 77 Defendants Motionto Stay Proceedings Pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigations Ruling on Transfer and Consolidation and Request for Expedited Briefing. A sixty-day stay on new discovery and discovery motions is hereby implemented extending up to and including 06/15/2009. A status conference is hereby set on Monday, 06/22/2009, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 203 by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 04/15/2009.(sah, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 08-cv-00119-WDM-MEH RAE ANN SCHMALTZ, Plaintiff, v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE, and BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC. Defendants. ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION'S RULING ON TRANSFER Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's Ruling on Transfer and Consolidation and Request for Expedited Briefing [filed April 1, 2009; docket #77]. The motion is fully briefed and referred to this Court. Oral argument would not materially assist the Court in its adjudication. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion. Defendants seek to stay this case pending a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) on whether to include this case for MDL treatment. Currently, the parties are briefing the transfer issue before the JPML. Defendants state that they expect a decision within 4560 days from today. Plaintiff is seeking to either be excluded from any consolidation before the JPML, or to have the consolidated cases located in Colorado. Fact discovery is set to close in this case on June 15, 2009. It appears that no depositions have occurred. The parties have issued and responded to written discovery, and documents are being provided by the Defendants on a staggered basis. Plaintiff requests that discovery go forward, although Plaintiff does not state what discovery would occur. Defendants argue that duplicative discovery can be avoided by entering a stay. The Court believes that a sixty-day hiatus on new discovery would not materially prejudice the Plaintiff and would hopefully decrease overall costs of litigation in the event the JPML approves the transfer. Therefore, the Court will grant the motion in part, entering a stay of any new discovery requests (depositions or written discovery) or discovery motions until June 15, 2009. The Court will hold a status conference on June 22, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. for the purpose of discussing and scheduling the remaining discovery in this case in the event the case is not transferred. If the case is transferred prior to that date, the Court will vacate the conference. Excluded from the stay are the parties' obligations to fully respond to all written discovery requests issued to date. In the event the parties have a dispute concerning compliance with discovery requests served prior to this date, the parties may contact the Court to discuss the dispute and receive informal direction from the Court, but no discovery motions may be filed. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's Ruling on Transfer and Consolidation and Request for Expedited Briefing [filed April 1, 2009; docket #77]; A sixty-day stay on new discovery and discovery motions is hereby implemented extending up to and including June 15, 2009, consistent with this Order; A status conference is hereby set on Monday, June 22, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 203 on the second floor of the Byron G. Rogers United States Courthouse located at 1929 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado; and In the event of a discovery dispute regarding discovery already requested, the parties may 2 contact Chambers at (303) 844-4507 to discuss the dispute and receive informal direction from the Court. Dated at Denver, Colorado, this 15th day of April, 2009. BY THE COURT: s/ Michael E. Hegarty Michael E. Hegarty United States Magistrate Judge 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?