Griego v. C R Bard Incorporated et al, No. 2:2021cv00325 - Document 23 (D. Nev. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 22 Stipulation to Stay Discovery re 21 Order (Third Request). Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 8/26/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Griego v. C R Bard Incorporated et al Doc. 23 Case 2:21-cv-00325-JAD-BNW Document 23 22 Filed 08/26/21 08/24/21 Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6840 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 Email: swanise@gtlaw.com 6 7 Counsel for Defendants 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 NESTOR GRIEGO, CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00325-JAD-BNW 10845 Griffith Peak Drive Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 12 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY AND ALL PRETRIAL DEADLINES 13 14 15 16 v. C. R. BARD, INCORPORATED and BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INCORPORATED, 17 [SECOND REQUEST] Defendants. 18 19 20 Plaintiff Nestor Griego and Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, 21 Inc. (collectively “Bard”) (Plaintiff and Bard are collectively referred to herein as “the 22 Parties”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and the Court’s inherent powers, respectfully request 23 that this Court enter an Order temporarily staying discovery and all pretrial deadlines imposed 24 by the Court, the Local Rules, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an additional 25 ninety (90) days to permit them to pursue negotiations of a settlement of this and all cases of 26 Plaintiff’s counsel recently remanded from the MDL pursuant to the MDL Court’s February 27 11, 2021 Amended Suggestion of Remand and Transfer Order (Fifth) (“Fifth Remand 28 Order”). 1 ACTIVE 59588425v1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:21-cv-00325-JAD-BNW Document 23 22 Filed 08/26/21 08/24/21 Page 2 of 6 1 Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendants have previously settled in principle numerous cases 2 in the MDL concerning Bard inferior vena cava (“IVC”) filters. The Parties believe that a stay 3 is necessary in this case to conserve their resources and attention so that they may attempt to 4 resolve it and the claims of other such plaintiffs represented by Plaintiff’s counsel that were 5 recently remanded to district courts across the country. Accordingly, the Parties jointly 6 request that the Court enter a stay of discovery and all pretrial deadlines in this case for a 7 period of ninety (90) days. If Plaintiff has not filed dismissal papers within ninety (90) days 8 from the stay being granted, the Parties request the opportunity to file a joint status report 9 regarding the status of the settlement. 10845 Griffith Peak Drive Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 10 I. Background 11 Plaintiff’s counsel represents plaintiffs with cases in the In re: Bard IVC Filters 12 Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2641 (the “MDL”), as well as cases that have been 13 transferred or remanded from the MDL to courts across the country, involving claims against 14 Bard for injuries they contend arise out of their use of Bard’s IVC filters. The Parties reached 15 a settlement in principle concerning the majority of the Plaintiff’s counsel’s IVC filter cases 16 and have finalized the details of that settlement with most of their clients. However, a small 17 number of those plaintiffs “opted out” of the settlement. The cases remanded pursuant to the 18 MDL’s Fifth Remand Order included those cases that were previously dismissed but for 19 which the MDL Court reinstated prior to remanding, since the plaintiff had opted out of the 20 settlement and a final settlement had not been reached. With respect to these cases, including 21 this one, counsel for the Parties have renewed discussions in an attempt to achieve a settlement 22 of the cases of these remaining plaintiffs represented by Plaintiff’s counsel. Counsel for the 23 Parties believe that their resources are best directed to focusing their efforts on potential 24 settlement discussions, especially given their past history of successful settlement discussions 25 relating to cases in this MDL. Thus, the Parties jointly move this Court to enter a stay of all 26 discovery and pretrial deadlines in this case for a period of ninety (90) days. 27 /// 28 /// 2 ACTIVE 59588425v1 Case 2:21-cv-00325-JAD-BNW Document 23 22 Filed 08/26/21 08/24/21 Page 3 of 6 10845 Griffith Peak Drive Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1 II. Arguments and Authorities 2 A. 3 Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b) and 26, and the Court’s inherent 4 authority and discretion to manage its own docket, this Court has the authority to grant the 5 requested stay. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified 6 time the court may, for good cause, extend the time....”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) (“A party or 7 any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where 8 the action is pending . . .The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or 9 person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.”). This 10 Court therefore has broad discretion to stay proceedings as incidental to its power to control 11 its own docket – particularly where, as here, a stay would promote judicial economy and 12 efficiency. Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps 13 of Engineers, 446 F.3d 808, 816 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 14 (1997)). The Court Has Authority to Grant the Requested Stay. 15 A stipulation to stay proceedings, like the Parties seek here, is an appropriate exercise 16 of this Court’s jurisdiction. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936) 17 (explaining a court’s power to stay proceedings is incidental to its inherent power to control 18 the disposition of the cases on its docket to save the time and effort of the court, counsel, and 19 the parties). 20 21 22 The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance. 23 24 Id. (citing Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 760, 763 (1931)); see also CMAX, 25 Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (district courts possess “inherent power to 26 control the disposition of the causes on its docket in a manner which will promote economy 27 of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”); Garlock Sealing Tech., LLC v. 28 Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp.), No. 11-1406, 11-1452 2012 U.S. 3 ACTIVE 59588425v1 10845 Griffith Peak Drive Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP Case 2:21-cv-00325-JAD-BNW Document 23 22 Filed 08/26/21 08/24/21 Page 4 of 6 1 Dist. LEXIS 86193, *11 (W.D. Mo. June 21, 2012) (noting that a court’s power to stay 2 proceedings is incidental to its power to control the disposition of causes on its docket). 3 Furthermore, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d) also vest the Court with 4 authority to limit the scope of discovery or control its sequence and may grant a stay to allow 5 parties to negotiate a settlement. Britton, 523 U.S. at 598. 6 B. Good Cause Exists to Grant the Requested Stay. 7 Plaintiff and Defendants are actively engaging in settlement negotiations. The Parties 8 further and in good faith believe that a final settlement is forthcoming that shall resolve this 9 and other cases within the inventory, especially given their past history of successful 10 settlement discussions relating to cases in this MDL. The Parties do not seek a stay in bad 11 faith, to unduly burden any party or the Court or cause unnecessary delay, but to support the 12 efficient and expeditious resolution of this litigation. Granting the stay here will certainly save 13 the time and effort of the Court, counsel, and the parties, promote judicial economy and 14 effectiveness, and provide counsel an opportunity to resolve their issues without additional 15 litigation expenses for their clients. 16 Facilitating the Parties’ efforts to resolve their dispute entirely through settlement 17 negotiations is reasonable and constitutes good cause for granting the requested stay of 18 discovery and other pretrial deadlines. The Parties agree that the relief sought herein is 19 necessary to handle the case in the most economical fashion, and that the relief sought in this 20 Agreed Stipulation is not for delay, but so that justice may be done. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 4 ACTIVE 59588425v1 Case 2:21-cv-00325-JAD-BNW Document 23 22 Filed 08/26/21 08/24/21 Page 5 of 6 1 III. Conclusion 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Parties respectfully request that the Court enter a stay of 3 all activity in this case, for a period of ninety (90) days. If Plaintiff has not filed dismissal 4 papers within ninety (90) days from the stay being granted, the Parties request the opportunity 5 to file a joint status report regarding the status of the settlement. 6 Respectfully submitted, 7 8 DATED this 24th day of August 2021. 9 10 AYLSTOCK WITKIN KREIS OVERHOLTZ, PLLC GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 11 10845 Griffith Peak Drive Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 12 13 14 15 16 By: /s/ Douglass A. Kreis DOUGLASS A. KREIS, ESQ. dkreis@awkolaw.com 17 East Main St., Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 By: /s/ Eric W. Swanis ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6840 swanise@gtlaw.com 10845 Griffith Peak Drive Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 Admitted pro hac vice Counsel for Plaintiff 17 Counsel for Defendants 18 19 Order 20 IT IS SO ORDERED 21 DATED: 10:18 am, August 26, 2021 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this ____ of _____________, 2021. 22 23 24 __________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 5 ACTIVE 59588425v1 Case 2:21-cv-00325-JAD-BNW Document 23 22 Filed 08/26/21 08/24/21 Page 6 of 6 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on August 24, 2021, I caused the foregoing document to be 3 electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send 4 notification of such filing to the CM/ECF participants registered to receive such service: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 10845 Griffith Peak Drive Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 12 Douglass Alan Kreis, Esq. AYLSTOCK WITKIN KREIS OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main St., Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 dkreis@awkolaw.com Billie-Marie Morrison, Esq. Craig P. Kenny & Assoc. 501 South 8th St. Las Vegas, NV 89101-7002 bmorrison@cpklaw.com 13 14 /s/ Shermielynn Irasga An employee of GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 ACTIVE 59588425v1
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
