Torres v. C R Bard Incorporated et al

Filing 45

ORDER granting 44 Stipulation to Extend Deadlines for Limited Purposes. Discovery due by 3/23/2021. Motions due by 10/4/2021. To the extent the excepted depositions are necessary for either party's summary judgment briefing, the excepted depositions must be taken prior to the deadline for dispositive motions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 2/16/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)

Case 2:19-cv-01582-KJD-BNW Document 44 Filed 02/12/21 Page 1 of 5
45
02/16/21
4

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: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
5 CHRISTOPHER J. NEUMANN, ESQ.*
CASEY SHPALL, ESQ.*
6 GREGORY R. TAN, ESQ.*
*Admitted Pro Hac Vice
7 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1144 15th Street, Suite 3300
8 Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: [phone]
9 Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
10
[e-mail]
11 Counsel for Defendants
12
13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

15

CAESAR L. TORRES,

16

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY
DEADLINES FOR LIMITED PURPOSES

Plaintiff,

17
18

CASE NO. 2:19-cv-01582-KJD-BNW

v.

19

C. R. BARD, INC.; BARD PERIPHERAL
VASCULAR, INCORPORATED,

20

Defendants.

(FIRST REQUEST)

21
22

COME NOW Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (“Bard” or

23 “Defendants”) and Plaintiff Caesar Torres (“Plaintiff”), by and through their undersigned counsel of
24 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

Case 2:19-cv-01582-KJD-BNW Document 44 Filed 02/12/21 Page 2 of 5
45
02/16/21
4

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. 42. 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 / / /

2

Case 2:19-cv-01582-KJD-BNW Document 44 Filed 02/12/21 Page 3 of 5
45
02/16/21
4

1

For the foregoing reasons, the parties stipulate and respectfully request that this Court modify the

2 Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, Dkt. 42, as follows (requested modifications are
3 bolded):
4
5
6

PROPOSED DATE
March 23, 2021

7
8
9

April 20, 2021

10

May 18, 2021

11
12
13
14
15
16

June 15, 2021
July 13, 2021
August 10, 2021
September 6, 2021
October 4, 2021

DEADLINE
Case-specific fact discovery closes with the exception of
depositions of Plaintiff’s disclosed family and friend witnesses
and Defendants’ applicable territory and district managers
(which shall be taken no later than 30 days before trial is
scheduled to begin).
The Plaintiff shall produce case-specific expert reports.
The Defendants shall produce case-specific expert reports.
The Plaintiff shall produce any case-specific rebuttal expert reports.
The Defendants shall produce any case-specific rebuttal expert
reports.
Deadline to depose the Plaintiff’s case-specific experts.
Deadline to depose the Defendants’ case-specific experts.
Deadline to file Daubert motions and other dispositive motions.

17 / / /
18 / / /
19 / / /
20 / / /
21 / / /
22 / / /
23 / / /
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /

3

Case 2:19-cv-01582-KJD-BNW Document 44 Filed 02/12/21 Page 4 of 5
45
02/16/21
4

1

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

2

Dated this 12th day of February 2021.

3
4

WETHERALL GROUP, LTD.
By:

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

7

/s/ Peter C. Wetherall
PETER C. WETHERALL, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 4414
9345 W. Sunset Road, Suite 100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89148
Email: [e-mail]

8

Counsel for Plaintiff

5
6

By:

/s/ Eric W. Swanis
ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 6840
10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Ste. 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
Email: [e-mail]

13

CHRISTOPHER J. NEUMANN, ESQ.*
CASEY SHPALL, ESQ.*
GREGORY R. TAN, ESQ.*
*Admitted Pro Hac Vice
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1144 15th Street, Suite 3300
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

14

Counsel for Defendants

9
10
11
12

15
16
17
18

ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
IT IS ORDERED that the parties' stipulation is GRANTED. To the extent the excepted
depositions are necessary for either party's summary judgment briefing, the excepted
depositions must be taken prior to the deadline for dispositive motions.
BRENDA WEKSLER
IT IS SO ORDERED
United States Magistrate Judge
DATED: 5:39 pm, February 16, 2021

19
20

Dated this ____ day of ___________ 2021.

21

BRENDA WEKSLER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4