Fielder v. C R Bard Inc et al
Filing
51
ORDER granting ECF No. 50 Stipulation to Stay Deadlines : Settlement 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 - DRM)
Case 3:20-cv-00473-MMD-BNW Document 50 Filed 02/09/21 Page 1 of 5
51
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: (702) 792-3773
Facsimile: (702) 792-9002
Email: swanise@gtlaw.com
6
Counsel for Defendants
2
3
4
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
DUANE FIELDER,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
CASE NO. 3:20-CV-00473-MMD-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 Duane
18
Fielder 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 55206814v2
Case 3:20-cv-00473-MMD-BNW Document 50 Filed 02/09/21 Page 2 of 5
51
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 his complaint on June 10, 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 20,
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 55206814v2
Case 3:20-cv-00473-MMD-BNW Document 50 Filed 02/09/21 Page 3 of 5
51
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 55206814v2
Case 3:20-cv-00473-MMD-BNW Document 50 Filed 02/09/21 Page 4 of 5
51
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: swanise@gtlaw.com
10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
Telephone: (702) 792-3773
13
/s/ Steven Schulte
Steven Schulte
(Admitted PHV)
Texas Bar No. 24051306
Email: schulte@fnlawfirm.com
5473 Blair Road
Dallas, TX 75231
Telephone: (214) 890-0711
Facsimile: (214) 890-0712
14
Counsel for Plaintiff
8
9
10
11
12
Counsel for Defendants
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
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.
18
19
Dated this ____ of _____________, 2021.
February 16, 2021.
___________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
ACTIVE 55206814v2
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?