Phillips v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Motion Hearing held on 3/26/2014 before Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb. Crtrm Administrator: Katie Lynn Ogden; Pla Counsel: Troy Brenes and Peter Wetherall (Telephonically); Def Counsel: Richard North and Justin Hepworth; FTR #: 10:06:29 a.m. - 10:38:14 a.m. / 10:46:55 a.m. - 10:57:38 a.m.; Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m.; Courtroom: 2. Defendants' 145 Motion to Seal and Plaintiff's 149 Motion to Seal are GRANTE D. Defendants' 143 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. The court grants leave to take the deposition of Mr. Weiland past the discovery deadline of April 18, 2014. See order for details. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
C.R. BARD, INC., et al.,
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
March 26, 2014
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Katie Lynn Ogden
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF: Troy Brenes and Peter Wetherall (Telephonically)
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): Richard North and Justin Hepworth
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion Hearing
10:06 a.m. Court convenes to address Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order
(Doc. # 143) and several related motions to seal (Doc. ## 144 & 149).
The court first addresses Defendants’ Motion to Seal (Doc. # 145) and Plaintiff’s Motion
to Seal (Doc. # 149). The court finds the parties have satisfied the “good cause” test for sealing
documents attached to non-dispositive motions.1 Therefore, Exhibit A as to Defendants’ Motion
for Reconsideration Regarding Notice of Deposition of John H. Weiland (Doc. # 144) shall
remain sealed, and Defendants’ Motion to Seal (Doc. # 145) is GRANTED. Additionally,
attached to Exhibit B to the Declaration of Troy A. Brenes in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to
Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration of
Court’s Order Denying Motion for Protective Order Regarding Deposition of John H. Weiland
shall remain sealed, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (Doc. # 149) is GRANTED.
The court next addresses Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. # 143)2
regarding this court’s order (Doc. # 136) pertaining to the deposition of Bard C.E.O. John
Weiland under certain parameters. The court hears additional argument regarding the court’s
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).
Plaintiff filed a response on 3/21/2014 (Doc. # 148). Defendants’ replied on 3/25/2014 (Doc. # 151).
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
Date: March 26, 2014
After reviewing the parties’ memoranda and hearing arguments of Bard’s counsel, the
court maintains its position that there are relevant areas of inquiries that Mr. Weiland
should answer. Therefore, in the exercise of the court’s discretion, the deposition of
Mr. Weiland shall proceed. Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. # 143) is DENIED.
If necessary, the court grants leave to take the deposition of Mr. Weiland past the
discovery deadline of April 18, 2014. However, the court reminds the parties that the discovery
deadline triggers the deadline for filing dispositive motions, which will require leave of the court
for an extension of time.
The court reviews the DVD attached to Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration
(Doc. # 143, Exhibit “E”) in open court. Although the court recognizes the DVD is an excerpt of
just certain areas of questions and answers which transpired during a lengthy deposition, the
court expresses its concern regarding plaintiff counsel’s decorum and professionalism at the
February 5, 2014, deposition of John McDermott. The court cautions counsel to adhere and
comply with the standards of professional conduct required of the members of the bar of this
court. The court expects counsel to be models of the decorum and will not tolerate anything less
than professionalism and civility.
10:57 a.m. Court adjourns.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
Katie Lynn Ogden, Deputy Clerk
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?