Miller v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. et al, No. 2:2022cv00309 - Document 19 (D. Nev. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 18 Stipulation re discovery plan and stay pending decision on motion to dismiss. It is granted to the extent that discovery will be stayed pending a decision on 14 . It is denied without prejudice in al l other regards. It Is Further Ordered that the parties must file a proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order within 14 days after 14 is decided. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 4/28/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LOE)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Miller v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. et al Doc. 19 Case 2:22-cv-00309-RFB-BNW Document 18 Filed 04/27/22 Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 KAEMPFER CROWELL Robert McCoy, No. 9121 Sihomara L. Graves, No. 13239 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-7000 Facsimile: (702) 796-7181 Email: rmccoy@kcnvlaw.com Email: sgraves@kcnvlaw.com VENABLE LLP Dino S. Sangiamo (pro hac vice) 750 East Pratt Street, Suite 900 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Telephone: (410) 244-7679 Facsimile: (410) 244-7742 Email: dssangiamo@venable.com IT IS ORDERED that ECF No. 18 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is granted to the extent that discovery will be stayed pending a decision on ECF No. 14. It is denied without prejudice in all other regards. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must file a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order within 14 days after ECF No. 14 is decided. Attorneys for Defendants Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and Merck & Co., Inc. 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 CANDY MILLER, an individual, Case No. 2:22-cv-00309-RFB-BNW Plaintiff, 15 STIPULATED DISCOVERY PLAN AND STAY PENDING DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS 16 vs. 17 MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., a New Jersey Corporation; MERCK & SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW CO., INC., a New Jersey Corporation; REQUESTED and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 18 19 Defendants. 20 21 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and LR 26-1(a), Plaintiff Candy 22 Miller and Defendants Merck & Co., Inc. and Merck Sharp & Dome Corp. 23 (“Merck”) submit the following Stipulated Discovery Plan and Proposed 24 Scheduling Order. 3111868_2 20343.1 Page 1 of 6 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:22-cv-00309-RFB-BNW Document 18 Filed 04/27/22 Page 2 of 6 1 I. MEETING The parties’ counsel held a telephonic Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference 2 3 on April 25, 2022. 4 II. AGREEMENT TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS 5 Merck has filed a motion to dismiss all claims in this case on the basis 6 of, among other things, statute of limitations. ECF No. 14. The motion is fully 7 briefed and awaiting decision. The parties stipulate that the commencement of 8 discovery should be stayed until this motion to dismiss is decided because, if 9 10 11 granted, it will resolve all claims in this case. The parties agree Fed. R. Civ. P. 1’s goal of a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding” are best met by this temporary stay to conserve judicial and party 12 resources. 13 III. DISCOVERY PLAN IF MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED 14 The parties jointly propose the following discovery plan to govern in 15 the event that Merck’s motion to stay is denied: 16 A. Initial Disclosures. 17 The parties propose to make their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) initial 18 disclosures within 30 days after a decision on the motion to dismiss is decided. 19 B. Discovery Cut-Off Date. 20 The parties propose that the discovery period run for 12 months from 21 the decision on Merck’s motion to dismiss. This exceeds the 180-day presumptive 22 outside limit provided by LR 26-1(b)(1) for completing discovery for the reasons 23 explained in Section IV below. 24 3111868_2 20343.1 Page 2 of 6 Case 2:22-cv-00309-RFB-BNW Document 18 Filed 04/27/22 Page 3 of 6 C. 1 The parties shall file any motions to amend the pleadings or to add 2 3 Amending the Pleadings and Adding Parties. parties no later than 90 days before the discovery cut-off. D. 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) Disclosures (Experts). 5 The parties propose that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) disclosures of experts 6 and expert reports proceed, as it is permitted to proceed on order of the Court by 7 LR 26-1(b)(3), as follows: 8 1. Plaintiff shall disclose experts and expert reports 150 days before the discovery cut-off; 2. Merck shall disclose experts and expert reports 120 days before the discovery cut-off; 3. The parties shall have until 90 days before the discovery cut-off to complete any depositions of any initial experts; 4. All parties shall disclose rebuttal experts and their reports 60 days before the discovery cut-off; and 5. The parties shall have until the proposed discovery cut-off date to complete any depositions of rebuttal experts. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 E. Dispositive Motions 16 The parties shall have until 30 days after the discovery cut-off to file 17 dispositive motions. 18 F. Pretrial Disclosures/Order 19 The pretrial disclosures and order shall be filed no later than 30 days 20 after the discovery motion deadline unless a dipositive motion is filed. 21 IV. JUSTIFICATION FOR LONGER DISCOVERY PERIOD 22 The parties believe the Court should permit a longer period for 23 discovery than provided in LR 26-1(b)(1) due to the nature of this case and the 24 3111868_2 20343.1 Page 3 of 6 Case 2:22-cv-00309-RFB-BNW Document 18 Filed 04/27/22 Page 4 of 6 1 medical issues involved. This, in turn, expands the scope of discovery that the 2 parties intend to seek. The parties anticipate that extensive medical and scientific 3 discovery will be needed because this action involves complex claims of product 4 liability involving an FDA-approved vaccine manufactured by Merck. Plaintiff 5 has alleged injuries requiring several periods of hospitalization and/or 6 rehabilitation. 7 concerning her medical condition as well as alleged damages. 8 potentially involve large document productions, depositions of medical providers, 9 and experts in multiple disciplines (e.g., medical, regulatory, design, damages). Discovery will require gathering numerous medical records This may 10 Furthermore, collection of medical records frequently leads to the 11 identification of additional relevant medical providers whose records must be 12 obtained in subsequent requests. Each request, from sending the subpoena to 13 actually receiving the records, is likely to take 30 days or longer. Merck will thus 14 need sufficient time to obtain, review, and analyze these records, and to take the 15 depositions of several witnesses, including plaintiff, her medical care providers, 16 and ultimately, plaintiff’s expert witnesses, of which there may be several. 17 Plaintiff also anticipates the necessity of conducting discovery as to the product at 18 issue in the case, which will likely include document productions and depositions 19 of witnesses, including experts. 20 The parties submit that their proposed discovery plan is an efficient 21 and realistic schedule for completing the significant amount of discovery 22 contemplated in this case. 23 24 3111868_2 20343.1 Page 4 of 6 Case 2:22-cv-00309-RFB-BNW Document 18 Filed 04/27/22 Page 5 of 6 1 2 V. OTHER ISSUES A. Protective Order. 3 The parties intend to seek a protective order under Fed. R. Civ. P 4 26(c) to facilitate document production and disclosure, while protecting the parties’ 5 respective interests in their confidential information. The parties will submit a 6 proposed protective order in a separate filing. 7 B. Alternative Dispute Resolution. 8 The parties have conferred about the possibility of using alternative 9 dispute resolution processes. The parties agree this issue is best addressed after 10 11 some discovery has taken place. C. The parties have considered trial by magistrate judge and the use of 12 13 14 Alternative Forms of Case Disposition. the short trial program. The parties do not consent to either at this time. D. Electronic Evidence. 15 The parties have considered the possibility of presenting evidence to 16 the jury in electronic format. In the event that any electronic evidence is submitted 17 by either party, the parties understand that such evidence must be submitted in a 18 format that is compatible with the Court’s electronic jury evidence display system. 19 The parties will consult the Court’s website or contact the courtroom administrator 20 for instructions about how to prepare evidence in a format that meets these 21 requirements. 22 23 24 3111868_2 20343.1 Page 5 of 6 Case 2:22-cv-00309-RFB-BNW Document 18 Filed 04/27/22 Page 6 of 6 1 2 E. Court Conference. The parties do not request a conference with the Court before entry of 3 the scheduling order. 4 WETHERALL GROUP, LTD. KAEMPFER CROWELL 5 7 /s/ Peter C. Wetherall Peter C. Wetherall, No. 4414 9345 West Sunset Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 8 Attorney for Plaintiff Candy Miller 6 Robert McCoy, No. 9121 Sihomara L. Graves, No. 13239 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 VENABLE LLP Dino S. Sangiamo (pro hac vice) 750 East Pratt Street, Suite 900 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 9 10 Attorneys for Defendants Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and Merck & Co., Inc. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ORDER ORDER ORDERED that ECF No. 18 isisGRANTED in part decision and IT IT ISISSO ORDERED. Discovery stayed pending on the DENIED in part. It is granted to the extent that discovery will pending Motionbetostayed Dismiss (ECFa No. 14). onIfECF the No. motion pending decision 14. Ittois dismiss denied is denied in without prejudice in all other regards. IT IS FURTHER whole are part, ORDERED the parties that shallthesubmit scheduling order based on the proposed partiesamust file a proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order within 14 days after ECF No. 14 schedule above is within 14 days of that order. decided. IT IS SO ORDERED 18 DATED: 5:15 pm, April 28, 2022 19 BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 DATED: 22 23 24 3111868_2 20343.1 Page 6 of 6
]]>
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.
