McKay v. C R Bard Inc et al

Filing 47

ORDER granting 46 Stipulation to Stay Discovery. Either dismissal documents or a Joint Status Report are due by 4/12/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 2/16/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)

Case 2:20-cv-01564-APG-BNW Document 46 Filed 02/09/21 Page 1 of 5
47
02/16/21
4

1

5

ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 6840
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

6

Counsel for Defendants

2
3
4

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

KAREN MCKAY,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

CASE NO. 2:20-CV-01564-APG-BNW

vs.
C. R. BARD INC., a Foreign Corporation; BARD
PERIPHERAL VASCULAR INC., an Arizona
Corporation; MCKESSON CORPORATION, a
Corporation,; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY AND
ALL PRETRIAL DEADLINES
(THIRD REQUEST)

Defendants.

16
17

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and (d) and LR IA 6-2, Plaintiff Karen

18

McKay in the above-titled action and Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

19

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

20

respectfully request that this Court temporarily stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines until April

21

12, 2021 while the Parties finalize settlement documents. In support thereof, the Parties state as

22

follows:

23

1.

This case is related to the Multi-District Litigation proceeding In re Bard IVC Filters

24

Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2641 (D. Ariz.), pending before Senior Judge David Campbell in

25

the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

26

2.

After four years, the completion of general issue discovery, and the trial of three

27

bellwether cases to verdict, Judge Campbell ordered that certain MDL cases would no longer benefit

28

from centralized proceedings and would be transferred to the appropriate jurisdictions around the
ACTIVE 55206999v3

Case 2:20-cv-01564-APG-BNW Document 46 Filed 02/09/21 Page 2 of 5
47
02/16/21
4

1

country for case-specific discovery and trial. (MDL 2641, ECF No. 19899, 20672, 21472.) While

2

this action was not in the MDL and was not transferred with the remanded cases, the issues and

3

causes of action are substantially similar.

4

3.

Here, Plaintiff filed her complaint on June 9, 2020. Bard removed the case to the

5

Northern District of Texas and that court transferred the case to the District of Nevada on August 21,

6

2020. Since that date, the Parties have engaged in further settlement discussions and have recently

7

reached a settlement in principle.

8

4.

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b) and 26, and the Court’s inherent

9

authority and discretion to manage its own docket, this Court has the authority to grant the requested

10

stay. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time the court may,

11

for good cause, extend the time....”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) (“A party or any person from whom

12

discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending . . . The

13

court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance,

14

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.”).

15

5.

This Court therefore has broad discretion to stay proceedings as incidental to its

16

power to control its own docket – particularly where, as here, a stay would promote judicial

17

economy and efficiency. Bacon v. Reyes, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143300, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 3,

18

2013) (citing, Munoz-Santana v. U.S. I.N.S., 742 F.2d 561, 562 (9th Cir. 1984)) (“Whether to grant a

19

stay is within the discretion of the court”); Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir.

20

2005) (“A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court.”); Landis v. N.

21

Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power

22

inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time

23

and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”).

24

6.

Furthermore, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d) vest the Court with

25

authority to limit the scope of discovery or control its sequence. Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S.

26

574, 598 (1998) (“Rule 26 vests the trial judge with broad discretion to tailor discovery narrowly and

27

to dictate the sequence of discovery.”)

28

///
2
ACTIVE 55206999v3

Case 2:20-cv-01564-APG-BNW Document 46 Filed 02/09/21 Page 3 of 5
47
02/16/21
4

1
2

In deciding whether to stay proceedings, courts weigh the competing interests of the parties
and the court.
Among those competing interests are the possible damage which may result from
the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being
required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the
simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be
expected to result from a stay.

3
4
5
6

Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1110 (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). Facilitating the efforts of parties to

7

resolve their disputes weighs in favor of granting a stay. In Coker v. Dowd, 2:13-cv-0994-JCM-NJK,

8

2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201845, at *2-3 (D. Nev. July 8, 2013), the parties requested a 60-day stay to

9

facilitate ongoing settlement negotiations and permit them to mediate global settlement. The Court

10

granted the stay, finding the parties would be prejudiced if required to move forward with discovery

11

at that time and a stay would potentially prevent an unnecessary complication in the case. Id. at *3.

12

Here, the Parties have reached a settlement in principle.

13
14

7.

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

pretrial deadlines until April 12, 2021.

15

8.

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

16

most economical fashion. The relief sought in this stipulation is not being requested for delay, but

17

so that justice may be done.

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
3
ACTIVE 55206999v3

Case 2:20-cv-01564-APG-BNW Document 46 Filed 02/09/21 Page 4 of 5
47
02/16/21
4

1
2

WHEREFORE, the Parties jointly request that discovery and all pretrial deadlines be stayed
until April 12, 2021 to allow the Parties to finalize settlement documents.

3
4

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

5
6
7

DATED this 9th day of February 2021.
FEARS NACHAWATI, PLLC

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLC
/s/ Eric W. Swanis
Eric W. Swanis
Nevada Bar No. 6840
Email: [e-mail]
10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
Telephone: [phone]

13

/s/ Steven Schulte
Steven Schulte
(Admitted PHV)
Texas Bar No. 24051306
Email: [e-mail]
5473 Blair Road
Dallas, TX 75231
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

14

Counsel for Plaintiff

8
9
10
11
12

Counsel for Defendants

15
16
17
18
19

ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
IT IS ORDERED that the parties' stipulation is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that by April 12, 2021, the parties must file either dismissal documents or a
joint status report about the status of settlement.
Dated this ____ of _____________, 2021.
IT IS SO ORDERED

20

DATED: 12:43 pm, February 16, 2021
___________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22

BRENDA WEKSLER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
4
ACTIVE 55206999v3