Hrnciar v. C R Bard Incorporated et al
ORDER Granting 47 Stipulation to Extend Stay of Discovery and All Pretrial Deadlines (Fourth Request) until 6/28/2021 to allow the Parties to finalize settlement. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 6/2/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - YAW)
Case 2:19-cv-01872-RFB-BNW Document 47 Filed 05/27/21 Page 1 of 5
Brian D. Nettles
1 Nevada Bar No. 7462
NETTLES MORRIS, Law Firm
2 1389 Galleria Drive, Ste 200
Henderson, NV 89014
3 Telephone: (702) 434-8282
5 Gregory D. Rueb (CA SBN 154589)
Dalimonte Rueb Stoller, LLP
6 515 S Figueroa St, Ste 1550
7 Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (949) 375-6843
8 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA
LYNN MARIE HRNCIAR,
Case No. 2:19-cv-01872-RFB-EJY
C R BARD INCORPORATED, et al
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
EXTEND STAY OF DISCOVERY
AND ALL PRETRIAL DEADLINES
Plaintiff Lynn Marie Hrnciar and Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral
21 Vascular, Inc. (“Defendants” and collectively with Plaintiff, the “Parties”), pursuant to Fed. R.
22 Civ. P. 26(c) and (d) and LR IA 6-1, respectfully request that this Court temporarily stay discovery
23 and all pretrial deadlines, as set forth in the revised Discovery Plan (Dkt. 43), until June 28, 2021
24 while the Parties finalize settlement. In support thereof, the Parties state as follows:
This case was part of the Multi-District Litigation proceeding In re: Bard IVC
26 Filters Product Liability Litigation, pending before Senior Judge David Campbell of the District
27 of Arizona.
Case 2:19-cv-01872-RFB-BNW Document 47 Filed 05/27/21 Page 2 of 5
Plaintiff alleges experiencing complications following the implantation of a Bard
2 Inferior Vena Cava (“IVC”) filter, a prescription medical device. She has asserted three strict
3 products liability counts (manufacturing defect, information defect (failure to warn) and design
4 defect), six negligence counts (design, manufacture, failure to recall/retrofit, failure to warn,
5 negligent misrepresentation and negligence per se), two breach of warranty counts (express and
6 implied), two counts sounding in fraud (fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment),
7 an unfair and deceptive trade practices count, and a claim for punitive damages.
Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations.
After four years, the completion of general issue discovery, and the conduct of three
10 bellwether trials, Judge Campbell ordered that cases, which were not settled or were not close to
11 settling, be transferred or remanded to the appropriate jurisdictions around the country for case12 specific discovery and trial. As a part of that process, he established a “track” system, wherein
13 certain cases were placed on tracks either to finalize settlement paperwork, continue settlement
14 negotiations, or be remanded or transferred.
This case was transferred to this Court on March 12, 2019 because at the time it
16 was not close to settling. But, since that date, the Parties have engaged in further
17 settlement discussions and have reached a global settlement in principle of this and other cases
18 involving Bard Inferior Vena Cava filters that have been filed across the nation, and a settlement
19 agreement is in place. The Parties have been working diligently and in good faith to finalize all
20 terms and payments pursuant to that settlement.
The Parties report that they continue to work diligently toward finalizing the
22 settlement by working to obtain releases and resolve liens, but due to complexity and volume, they
23 anticipate that completion of the settlement process will take approximately 30 days. Accordingly,
24 the Parties request a 30-day extension of the stay in this matter.
The Parties are waiting on final paperwork from this Plaintiff and many others, to
26 complete the settlement process.
Case 2:19-cv-01872-RFB-BNW Document 47 Filed 05/27/21 Page 3 of 5
Neither party will be prejudiced by this extension and this will prevent unnecessary
2 expenditures of the Parties and of judicial resources.
Accordingly, the Parties request that this Court issue an order staying discovery and
4 pretrial deadlines until June 28, 2021 to allow the Parties time to finalize settlement. This will
5 prevent unnecessary expenditures of the Parties and judicial resources as well as place this case on
6 a similar “track” as the MDL cases Judge Campbell determined should continue settlement
A district court has broad discretion over pretrial discovery rulings. Crawford-El
9 v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); accord Republic of Ecuador v. Hinchee, 741 F.3d 1185,
10 1188-89 (11th Cir. 2013); Thermal Design, Inc. v. Am. Soc’y of Heating, Refrigerating & Air11 Conditioning Eng’rs, Inc., 755 F.3d 832, 837 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Cook v. Kartridg Pak Co.,
12 840 F.2d 602, 604 (8th Cir. 1988) (“A district court must be free to use and control pretrial
13 procedure in furtherance of the orderly administration of justice.”).
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d), a court may limit the scope
15 of discovery or control its sequence. Britton, 523 U.S. at 598. Although settlement negotiations
16 do not automatically excuse a party from its discovery obligations, the parties can seek a stay prior
17 to the cutoff date. Sofo v. Pan-Am. Life Ins. Co., 13 F.3d 239, 242 (7th Cir. 1994); see also, Wichita
18 Falls Office Assocs. v. Banc One Corp., 978 F.2d 915, 918 (5th Cir. 1993) (finding that a “trial
19 judge’s decision to curtail discovery is granted great deference,” and noting that the discovery had
20 been pushed back a number of times because of pending settlement negotiations).
Facilitating the efforts of parties to resolve their disputes weighs in favor of granting
22 a stay. In Coker v. Dowd, 2:13-cv-0994-JCM-NJK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201845, at *2-3 (D.
23 Nev. July 8, 2013), the parties requested a 60-day stay to facilitate ongoing settlement negotiations
24 and permit them to mediate global settlement. The Court granted the stay, finding the parties
25 would be prejudiced if required to move forward with discovery at that time and a stay would
26 potentially prevent an unnecessary complication in the case. Id. at *3. Here, the Parties have
27 reached a settlement in principle.
Case 2:19-cv-01872-RFB-BNW Document 47 Filed 05/27/21 Page 4 of 5
The Parties agree that the relief sought herein is necessary to handle the case in the
2 most economical fashion and to ensure that the Court’s time and resources are not expended on a
3 matter that may not remain on its docket, yet will allow sufficient time to finalize settlement in
4 this matter.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendants respectfully request the Court’s approval of this
6 stipulation to stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines until June 28, 2021 to allow the Parties to
7 finalize settlement.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated this 27th day of May 2021.
DALIMONTE RUEB STOLLER, LLP
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
By: /s/ Gregory D. Rueb
GREGORY D. RUEB, ESQ.
515 S. Figuera Street, Suite 1550
Los Angeles, California 90071
By: /s/ Eric W. Swanis
ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 6840
10845 Griffith Peak Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
Brian D. Nettles, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 7462
1389 Galleria Drive Suite 200
Henderson, Nevada 89014
Counsel for Plaintiff
CHRISTOPHER J. NEUMANN,
MATTHEW L. CROCKETT, ESQ.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1144 15th Street, Suite 3300
Denver, Colorado 80202
Counsel for Defendants
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 2, of _____________, 2021.
Dated :this ____2021.
United States Magistrate Judge
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?