Rhoden v. C R Bard Incorporated et al

Filing 17

ORDER: granting #16 Letter Motion to Stay re: #16 JOINT LETTER MOTION to Stay Case for 90 Days addressed to Judge Valerie E. Caproni from Timothy E. Di Domenico dated March 31, 2021. Application GRANTED. This case is STAYED. A joint update on the status of this case is due by June 30, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 3/31/2021) (ama)

Case 1:21-cv-01677-VEC Document 16 Filed 03/31/21 Page 1 of 2

Timothy E. Di Domenico
Tel [phone]
[e-mail]

MEMO ENDORSED

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 3/31/2021

March 31, 2021
VIA ECF
The Honorable Valerie E. Caproni
United States District Judge
United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square, Room 443
New York, NY 10007
Re:

Hugh M. Rhoden, Sr. v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 1:21-cv-01677-VEC

Dear Judge Caproni:
On behalf of plaintiff Hugh M. Rhoden, Sr. (“Plaintiff”) and defendants C. R. Bard, Inc.
and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (collectively, “Bard”) (all, collectively, the “Parties”) in the
above-referenced matter (the “Action”), the Parties submit this joint letter to respectfully request
a temporary stay of this case and all upcoming deadlines for a period of ninety (90) days to permit
them to pursue negotiations of a settlement of this and all cases of Plaintiff’s counsel recently
remanded from In re: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2641 (the “MDL”)
pursuant to the MDL Court’s February 11, 2021 Amended Suggestion of Remand and Transfer
Order (Fifth) (“Fifth Remand Order”).
Plaintiff’s counsel represents plaintiffs with cases in the MDL as well as cases that have
been transferred or remanded from the MDL to courts across the country, involving claims against
Bard for injuries they contend arise out of their use of Bard’s inferior vena cava (“IVC”) filters.
Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendants have previously settled in principle numerous cases in the MDL
concerning Bard’s IVC filters. The Parties reached a settlement in principle concerning the
majority of the Plaintiff’s counsel IVC filter cases and have finalized the details of that settlement
with most of their clients. However, a small number of those plaintiffs “opted out” of the
settlement. The cases remanded pursuant to the MDL’s Fifth Remand Order included those cases
that were previously dismissed but for which the MDL Court reinstated prior to remanding, since
the plaintiff opted out of the settlement and a final settlement had not been reached. With respect
to these cases, including this one, Counsel for the Parties have renewed discussions to achieve a
settlement of the cases of these remaining plaintiffs represented by Plaintiff’s counsel.
The Parties believe that a stay is necessary in this case to conserve their resources and
attention so that they may attempt to resolve it and the claims of other such plaintiffs represented
Greenberg Traurig, LLP | Attorneys at Law
MetLife Building | 200 Park Avenue | New York, New York 10166 | T +1 212.801.9200 | F +1 212.801.6400ACTIVE 56242767v1
www.gtlaw.com

Case 1:21-cv-01677-VEC Document 16 Filed 03/31/21 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Valerie E. Caproni
United States District Judge
United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York
March 31, 2021
Page 2
by Plaintiff’s counsel that were recently remanded to district courts across the country. Counsel
for the Parties believe that their resources are best directed to focusing their efforts on potential
settlement discussions, especially given their past history of successful settlement discussions
relating to cases in this MDL. Accordingly, the Parties jointly request that the Court enter a stay
of discovery and all pretrial deadlines in this case for a period of ninety (90) days. If Plaintiff has
not filed dismissal papers within ninety (90) days from the stay being granted, the Parties request
the opportunity to file a joint status report regarding the status of the settlement.
This Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as incidental to its power to control its
own docket – particularly where, as here, a stay would promote judicial economy and efficiency.
See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998);
Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (recognizing that the “[p]ower to stay proceedings
is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control disposition of causes on its docket with
economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”).
Further, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d) also vest the Court with authority
to grant a stay, limit the scope of discovery, or control its sequence, upon a showing of good cause
and reasonableness. Facilitating the parties’ efforts to resolve their dispute through continued
settlement negotiations that began before this action was remanded to this Court is reasonable and
constitutes good cause for granting the requested short-term stay. See Sellick v. Consolidated
Edison Company of New York, Inc., 15-CV-9082 (RJS), 2017 WL 1133443, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.
23, 2017) (noting Court granted stay of discovery “in order to facilitate settlement negotiations”).
Several courts throughout the country (including judges in this District) have granted short-term
stays in many IVC filter cases as the parties negotiate settlement.
Accordingly, the Parties respectfully request that the Court enter a stay of all activity in
this case, for a period of ninety (90) days. If Plaintiff has not filed dismissal papers within ninety
(90) days from the stay being granted, the Parties request the opportunity to file a joint status report
regarding the status of the settlement.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Timothy E. Di Domenico
Timothy E. Di Domenico

cc:

David P. Matthews, Esq.
Richard A. Freese, Esq.

Greenberg Traurig, LLP | Attorneys at Law
www.gtlaw.com

Application GRANTED. This case is STAYED. A joint update on the
status of this case is due by June 30, 2021.
SO ORDERED.

3/31/2021
HON. VALERIE CAPRONI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE