Hatton v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

Filing 35

ORDER granting (6880) Motion to Quash and for Protective Order in case 3:06-md-01760; granting (32) Motion to Quash and for Protective Order in case 3:07-cv-00397. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 10/1/13. Associated Cases: 3:06-md-01760, 3:07-cv-00397(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION In Re: AREDIA® AND ZOMETA® PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 1760) This Document Relates to: 3:07-00397 (Hatton) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:06-MD-1760 Judge Campbell/Brown ORDER Plaintiff, Ronald Hatton (Mr. Hatton), timely filed a motion to quash and for a protective order on August 2, 2013 in connection with deposition of Mr. Hatton’s son, Stephen Hatton (Stephen), noticed for August 7, 2013. (MDL Doc. 6880; Related Case 32) Plaintiff argues that Stephen’s deposition should be taken following remand, and that “counsel has agreed to make Stephen . . . available for deposition” at that time. (MDL Doc. 6880; Related Case 32) The Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (NPC) filed a response to the motion on August 7, 2013, in which NPC states that it “does not oppose plaintiff’s counsel’s request to defer the . . . deposition of Stephen . . . until after remand of this case, so long as this Court[1] does not impose limitations on the scope of the deposition.” (MDL Doc. 6893; Related Case 33)(emphasis added) More particularly, NPC states that, “[s]hould Stephen . . . provide additional information about liability issues that the personal representative was unable to recall, NPC will seek to secure discovery related to that information.” (MDL Doc. 6893; Related Case 33) Alternatively, NPC is prepared to take Stephen’s deposition prior to remand. (MDL Doc. 6893; Related Case 33) Plaintiff did not file a reply to NPC’s response. Therefore, plaintiff is deemed not to object 1 Discovery-related issues upon remand are in the hands of the remand court. to NPC’s conditions. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to quash and for a protective order (MDL Doc. 6880; Related Case 32) is GRANTED subject to the conditions set forth by NPC in its response (MDL Doc. 6893; Related Case 33). It is so ORDERED. ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2013. /s/Joe B. Brown Joe B. Brown United States Magistrate Judge 2

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?