United States District Court, D. Nevada
& WILMER LLP. Vaughn A. Crawford Joshua D. Cools David J.
Cooner (pro hac vice) Zane C. Riester (pro hac vice) Jean P.
Patterson (pro hac vice) McCarter & English, LLP
Attorneys for Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Access
WETHERALL GROUP, LTD. Peter C. Wetherall Attorneys for
Plaintiff Gayle Layne
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY
to Local Rules 26-4 and 6-1, the parties hereby submit the
following Stipulation and Order for Extension of Discovery
Plan and Scheduling Order (First Request) to extend discovery
to October 31, 2018. This request is based on good cause
because the litigation of this matter will be best served by
the proposed extension.
REASONS FOR EXTENSION TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY
a product liability case involving the surgical implant of a
prescription medical device - an implantable port and
catheter, known as a Bard PowerPort® with an attachable
polyurethane catheter (“BardPort”) - which was
used for the administration of chemotherapy. A BardPort was
implanted in Plaintiff Gayle Layne on November 13, 2015.
Plaintiff alleges that the product fractured and migrated
inside Plaintiff's body. Plaintiff brings claims of
product liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and
fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment against
Defendants. Plaintiff initially filed their case on July 27,
2017 in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County.
The case was subsequently removed and Defendants filed an
answer on September 25, 2017.
for the parties have another case pending in the Northern
District of Alabama (Docket 17-cv-00210) that involves a
BardPort. So the parties have had significant discussions
about the scope of discovery in this case. On November 15,
2017, the parties participated in a telephonic discovery
planning conference pursuant to Rule 26(f). Prior to this
conference, Defendants had circulated a proposed discovery
plan and scheduling order. Following the conference, the
parties exchanged multiple drafts of the discovery plan in
attempt to resolve their different proposals. During this
time, Plaintiff Gayle Layne died. Plaintiff's counsel is
now working on having the estate established so that he has
authority to continue with the litigation. In the meantime,
the Court issued a discovery plan, noting that the parties
not filed one, and set discovery to close on March 28, 2018.
the complexity of the case and the significant effect of
Plaintiff's death on the litigation, the parties agree
that substantially more time will be required for discovery.
The parties have agreed that a discovery period of
approximately one year should permit the parties to do all
discovery needed, including the retention of several experts
and production of the company documents pertinent to
Plaintiff's claims. This is extension is being sought in
good faith and not to unduly delay this proceeding.
DISCOVERY COMPLETED TO DATE
has not yet begun, but the parties have participated in
significant discussion regarding the scope of discovery,
potential electronically stored information, and likely
custodians of discoverable information related to this case.
This has consisted of multiple telephone conversations and
PROPOSED NEW DISCOVERY DEADLINES
Deadline for Parties to Disclose Experts:
Currently: January 25, 2018
Proposed: August 30, 2018
Deadline for Parties ...