Bond v. C R Bard Incorporated ( 2020 )

1 Shawtina F. Lewis (SBN 259255) shawtina.lewis@nelsonmullins.com 2 NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 3 19191 South Vermont Avenue, Suite 900 Torrance, CA 90502 4 Telephone: 424.221.7400 Facsimile: 424.221.7499 5 Matthew B. Lerner (admitted pro hac vice) 6 matthew.lerner@nelsonmullins.com NELSON MULLINS RILEY & 7 SCARBOROUGH LLP 201 17th Street NW, Suite 1700 8 Atlanta, GA 30363 Telephone: 404.322.6158 9 Facsimile: 404.322.6050 10 Eric J. Buhr (SBN 217529) ebuhr@reedsmith.com 11 Alexis A. Rochlin (SBN 280634) arochlin@reedsmith.com 12 Kevin G. Lohman (SBN 222678) klohman@reedsmith.com 13 REED SMITH LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900 14 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514 Telephone: +1 213.457.8000 15 Facsimile: +1 213.458.8080 16 Attorneys for Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and 17 Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 20 21 DARYL BOND, Case No.: 1:20-cv-00444-DAD-BAM 22 Plaintiff, Honorable Dale A. Drozd Honorable Barbara A. McAuliffe 23 v. JOINT MOTION TO STAY 24 C. R. BARD INC., and DISCOVERY AND ALL PRETRIAL BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC., DEADLINES & ORDER 25 Defendants. 26 27 28 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and (d), Plaintiff in the above-titled 2 action and Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (collectively, “Bard”) 3 (Plaintiff and Bard are collectively referred to herein as “the Parties”), respectfully request that 4 this Court temporarily stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines and continue the upcoming 5 Scheduling Conference in this case for 60 days after entry of the [Proposed] Order while the Parties 6 pursue settlement discussions. In support thereof, the Parties state as follows: 7 1. This case was part of the multidistrict litigation proceeding known as In re: Bard 8 IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2641, pending before the Honorable David G. 9 Campbell of the District of Arizona. 10 2. After four years, the completion of general issue discovery, and conducting three 11 bellwether trials, Judge Campbell ordered that cases, which have not settled or are not close to 12 settling, be transferred or remanded to the appropriate jurisdictions around the country for case- 13 specific discovery and trial. As a part of that process, he established a “track” system, wherein 14 certain cases were placed on tracks either to finalize settlement paperwork, continue settlement 15 negotiations, or be remanded or transferred. 16 This case was transferred to this Court on March 27, 2020 (Doc. 6). Since that date, the 17 Parties have engaged in serious settlement discussions and are hopeful that this and the other cases 18 in Plaintiff’s counsel’s inventory will resolve at a mediation scheduled for July 10, 2020. To 19 facilitate those discussion, the Parties and their counsel have agreed to “stand down” until at least 20 August 12, 2020 while they pursue settlement. The parties will provide the court with a joint status 21 report no later than July 17, 2020 advising of the status of the negotiations. 22 3. A district court has broad discretion over pretrial discovery rulings. See, e.g., 23 Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); accord Thermal Design, Inc. v. Am. Soc’y of 24 Heating, Refrigerating & Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 755 F.3d 832, 837 (7th Cir. 2014); 25 Burns v. EGS Fin. Care, Inc., No. 4:15-CV-06173-DGK, 2016 WL 7535365 at *1 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 26 12, 2016); see also Cook v. Kartridg Pak Co., 840 F.2d 602, 604 (8th Cir. 1988) (“A district court 27 must be free to use and control pretrial procedure in furtherance of the orderly administration of 28 1 “inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket in a manner which will 2 promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”). 3 4. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d), a court may limit the scope 4 of discovery or control its sequence. See Britton, 523 U.S. at 598. Although settlement 5 negotiations do not automatically excuse a party from its discovery obligations, the parties can 6 seek a stay prior to the cutoff date. See Sofo v. Pan-American Life Ins. Co., 13 F.3d 239, 242 (7th 7 Cir. 1994); Wichita Falls Office Assocs. V. Banc One Corp., 978 F.2d 915, 918 (5th Cir. 1993) 8 (finding that a “trial judge’s decision to curtail discovery is granted great deference,” and noting 9 that the discovery had been pushed back a number of times because of pending settlement 10 negotiations). 11 5. Accordingly, the Parties jointly move this Court for an order staying discovery and 12 pretrial deadlines and continuing the upcoming Scheduling Conference in this case for 60 days 13 after entry of the [Proposed] Order to allow the Parties to conduct ongoing settlement discussions, 14 after which the Parties will file a stipulation of dismissal or will submit a joint statement reporting 15 on the status of settlement. The requested relief will facilitate settlement efforts and prevent 16 unnecessary expenditures of the parties and judicial resources. 17 6. The Parties agree that the relief sought herein is necessary to handle the case in the 18 most economical fashion, yet allow sufficient time to schedule and complete discovery if 19 necessary, consistent with the scheduling obligations of counsel. The relief sought in this Motion 20 is not being requested for delay, but so that justice may be done. 21 WHEREFORE, The Parties jointly request that discovery and all pretrial deadlines be 22 stayed and that the upcoming Scheduling Conference be continued for 60 days after entry of the 23 [Proposed] Order to allow the Parties to conduct ongoing settlement negotiations. 24 [Signatures on the following page] 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 1 DATED: June 16, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 2 NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 3 4 /s/ Matthew B. Lerner Matthew B. Lerner (admitted pro hac vice) 5 201 17th Street NW, Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30363 6 Telephone: (404) 322-6158 Facsimile: (404) 322-6050 7 matthew.lerner@nelsonmullins.com Attorney for Defendants 8 C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. 9 DATED: June 16, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 10 GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, PC 11 12 /s/ Melissa Fry Hague (as authorized on 6/15/20) Melissa Fry Hague (admitted pro hac vice) 13 8 Tower Bridge 161 Washington St. 14 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: 484-342-0700 15 Facsimile: 484-580-8747 hague@lawgsp.com 16 Attorney for Plaintiff Daryl Bond 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 FILER’S ATTESTATION 2 The undersigned filer attests that, pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), concurrence in the filing 3 of the document has been obtained from the other signatory to this document. 4 By: /s/ Shawtina F. Lewis 5 Shawtina F. Lewis Attorney for Defendants 6 C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 Having considered the parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby 3 GRANTS the parties’ request. The Initial Scheduling Conference currently set for July 22, 2020, 4 is hereby continued to September 16, 2020 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before 5 Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. All discovery and pretrial deadlines in this action are 6 hereby stayed until the Initial Scheduling Conference. The parties shall file a Joint Scheduling 7 Report in full compliance with the requirements set forth in the Order Setting Mandatory 8 Scheduling Conference at least one (1) full week prior to the Scheduling Conference. (See Doc. 9 Nos. 7, 18.) The parties may appear at the conference by telephone with each party using the 10 following dial-in number and access code: dial-in number 1-877-411-9748; access code 11 3219139. If the parties file a notice of settlement prior to the conference, then the conference will 12 be vacated. However, if the parties are unable to reach a settlement, then the conference will 13 proceed. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: June 16, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28