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)

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