Hrnciar v. C R Bard Incorporated ( 2021 )

Brian D. Nettles 1 Nevada Bar No. 7462 NETTLES MORRIS, Law Firm 2 1389 Galleria Drive, Ste 200 Henderson, NV 89014 3 Telephone: (702) 434-8282 Email: brian@nettlesmorris.com 4 5 Gregory D. Rueb (CA SBN 154589) Dalimonte Rueb Stoller, LLP 6 515 S Figueroa St, Ste 1550 7 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (949) 375-6843 8 Email: greg@drlawllp.com 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 12 LYNN MARIE HRNCIAR, Case No. 2:19-cv-01872-RFB-EJY 13 Plaintiff, 14 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 15 v EXTEND STAY OF DISCOVERY AND ALL PRETRIAL DEADLINES 16 C R BARD INCORPORATED, et al (FOURTH REQUEST) 17 Defendants, 18 19 20 Plaintiff Lynn Marie Hrnciar and Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral 21 Vascular, Inc. (“Defendants” and collectively with Plaintiff, the “Parties”), pursuant to Fed. R. 22 Civ. P. 26(c) and (d) and LR IA 6-1, respectfully request that this Court temporarily stay discovery 23 and all pretrial deadlines, as set forth in the revised Discovery Plan (Dkt. 43), until June 28, 2021 24 while the Parties finalize settlement. In support thereof, the Parties state as follows: 25 1. This case was part of the Multi-District Litigation proceeding In re: Bard IVC 26 Filters Product Liability Litigation, pending before Senior Judge David Campbell of the District 27 of Arizona. 1 2. Plaintiff alleges experiencing complications following the implantation of a Bard 2 Inferior Vena Cava (“IVC”) filter, a prescription medical device. She has asserted three strict 3 products liability counts (manufacturing defect, information defect (failure to warn) and design 4 defect), six negligence counts (design, manufacture, failure to recall/retrofit, failure to warn, 5 negligent misrepresentation and negligence per se), two breach of warranty counts (express and 6 implied), two counts sounding in fraud (fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment), 7 an unfair and deceptive trade practices count, and a claim for punitive damages. 8 3. Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations. 9 4. After four years, the completion of general issue discovery, and the conduct of three 10 bellwether trials, Judge Campbell ordered that cases, which were not settled or were not close to 11 settling, be transferred or remanded to the appropriate jurisdictions around the country for case- 12 specific discovery and trial. As a part of that process, he established a “track” system, wherein 13 certain cases were placed on tracks either to finalize settlement paperwork, continue settlement 14 negotiations, or be remanded or transferred. 15 5. This case was transferred to this Court on March 12, 2019 because at the time it 16 was not close to settling. But, since that date, the Parties have engaged in further 17 settlement discussions and have reached a global settlement in principle of this and other cases 18 involving Bard Inferior Vena Cava filters that have been filed across the nation, and a settlement 19 agreement is in place. The Parties have been working diligently and in good faith to finalize all 20 terms and payments pursuant to that settlement. 21 6. The Parties report that they continue to work diligently toward finalizing the 22 settlement by working to obtain releases and resolve liens, but due to complexity and volume, they 23 anticipate that completion of the settlement process will take approximately 30 days. Accordingly, 24 the Parties request a 30-day extension of the stay in this matter. 25 7. The Parties are waiting on final paperwork from this Plaintiff and many others, to 26 complete the settlement process. 27 1 8. Neither party will be prejudiced by this extension and this will prevent unnecessary 2 expenditures of the Parties and of judicial resources. 3 9. Accordingly, the Parties request that this Court issue an order staying discovery and 4 pretrial deadlines until June 28, 2021 to allow the Parties time to finalize settlement. This will 5 prevent unnecessary expenditures of the Parties and judicial resources as well as place this case on 6 a similar “track” as the MDL cases Judge Campbell determined should continue settlement 7 dialogue. 8 10. A district court has broad discretion over pretrial discovery rulings. Crawford-El 9 v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); accord Republic of Ecuador v. Hinchee, 741 F.3d 1185, 10 1188-89 (11th Cir. 2013); Thermal Design, Inc. v. Am. Soc’y of Heating, Refrigerating & Air- 11 Conditioning Eng’rs, Inc., 755 F.3d 832, 837 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Cook v. Kartridg Pak Co., 12 840 F.2d 602, 604 (8th Cir. 1988) (“A district court must be free to use and control pretrial 13 procedure in furtherance of the orderly administration of justice.”). 14 11. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d), a court may limit the scope 15 of discovery or control its sequence. Britton, 523 U.S. at 598. Although settlement negotiations 16 do not automatically excuse a party from its discovery obligations, the parties can seek a stay prior 17 to the cutoff date. Sofo v. Pan-Am. Life Ins. Co., 13 F.3d 239, 242 (7th Cir. 1994); see also, Wichita 18 Falls Office Assocs. v. Banc One Corp., 978 F.2d 915, 918 (5th Cir. 1993) (finding that a “trial 19 judge’s decision to curtail discovery is granted great deference,” and noting that the discovery had 20 been pushed back a number of times because of pending settlement negotiations). 21 12. Facilitating the efforts of parties to resolve their disputes weighs in favor of granting 22 a stay. In Coker v. Dowd, 2:13-cv-0994-JCM-NJK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201845, at *2-3 (D. 23 Nev. July 8, 2013), the parties requested a 60-day stay to facilitate ongoing settlement negotiations 24 and permit them to mediate global settlement. The Court granted the stay, finding the parties 25 would be prejudiced if required to move forward with discovery at that time and a stay would 26 potentially prevent an unnecessary complication in the case. Id. at *3. Here, the Parties have 27 reached a settlement in principle. ] 13. The Parties agree that the relief sought herein is necessary to handle the case in the 2 || most economical fashion and to ensure that the Court’s time and resources are not expended on a 3 || matter that may not remain on its docket, yet will allow sufficient time to finalize settlement in 4 || this matter. 5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendants respectfully request the Court’s approval of this 6 || stipulation to stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines until June 28, 2021 to allow the Parties to 7 || finalize settlement. 8 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 9 Dated this 27" day of May 2021. 10 DALIMONTE RUEB STOLLER, LLP GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP By: /s/ Gregory D. Rueb By: /s/ Eric W. Swanis GREGORY D. RUEB, ESQ. ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. 13 515 S. Figuera Street, Suite 1550 Nevada Bar No. 6840 14 Los Angeles, California 90071 10845 Griffith Peak Drive greg@drlawllp.com Suite 600 15 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 16 Brian D. Nettles, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 7462 CHRISTOPHER J. NEUMANN, 17 NETTLES MORRIS ESQ. 1389 Galleria Drive Suite 200 MATTHEW L. CROCKETT, ESQ 18 Henderson, Nevada 89014 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 19 Brian@nettlesmorris.com 1144 15th Street, Suite 3300 Denver, Colorado 80202 20 Counsel for Plaintiff Email: neumannc@gtlaw.com crockettm@gtlaw.com 22 Counsel for Defendants 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: June 2, 2021. 25 Zils Ure bad 26 Brenda Weksler 27 United States Magistrate Judge 28 4.