Degrado v. C R Bard Inc ( 2021 )

1 ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6840 2 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 3 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 4 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 5 Email: swanise@gtlaw.com 6 Counsel for Defendants 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 SUSAN DEGRADO, CASE NO. 3:20-CV-00500-MMD-BNW 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY AND 13 C. R. BARD INC., a Foreign Corporation; BARD ALL PRETRIAL DEADLINES PERIPHERAL VASCULAR INC., an Arizona 14 Corporation; MCKESSON CORPORATION, a (THIRD REQUEST) Corporation,; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and (d) and LR IA 6-2, Plaintiff Susan 18 Degrado in the above-titled action and Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, 19 Inc. (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 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 her complaint on June 8, 2020. Bard removed the case to the 5 Northern District of Texas and that court transferred the case to the District of Nevada on 6 September 2, 2020. Since that date, the Parties have engaged in further settlement discussions and 7 have recently 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.”) 1 In deciding whether to stay proceedings, courts weigh the competing interests of the parties 2 and the court. 3 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 4 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 5 expected to result from a stay. 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 7. Accordingly, the Parties jointly move this Court for an order staying discovery and 14 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 / / / 1 WHEREFORE, the Parties jointly request that discovery and all pretrial deadlines be stayed 2 until April 12, 2021 to allow the Parties to finalize settlement. 3 4 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 5 6 DATED this 9th day of February 2021. 7 NGUYEN & ASSOCIATES, LLC GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLC 8 /s/ Mike H. T. Nguyen_____________ /s/ Eric W. Swanis 9 Mike H. T. Nguyen Eric W. Swanis Nevada Bar No. 12055 Nevada Bar No. 6840 10 m_nguyen@thenguyenlaw.com Email: swanise@gtlaw.com 6831 Ponderosa Way 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600 11 Las Vegas, NV 89118 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 12 Telephone: (702) 999-8888 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 13 Counsel for Plaintiff Counsel for Defendants 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by 17 April 12, 2021, the parties must file Dated tFheisb _ru__a_ry o 1f 6_,_ _2_0_2_1_.______, 2021. 18 either dismissal documents or a joint status report about the status of 19 settlement. ___________________________________ 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27