Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Clark County v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

October 2, 2019

CLARK COUNTY, Plaintiff,
v.
PURDUE PHARMA, L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC. d/b/a THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; PURDUE PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P.; RICHARD S. SACKLER; JONATHAN D. SACKLER, MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A. SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER LEFCOURT; DAVID A. SACKLER; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER; PLP ASSOCIATES HOLDINGS L.P.; ROSEBAY MEDICAL COMPANY L.P.; BEACON COMPANY; TEVAPHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.;CEPHALON, INC.; ENDO HEALTHSOLUTIONS INC.; ENDOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; PARPHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PARPHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.;ALLERGAN INC.; ALLERGAN USA INC.;ACTAVIS, INC. f/k/a WATSONPHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WATSONLABORATORIES, INC.; INSYSTHERAPEUTICS, INC.; JOHN KAPOOR;RICHARD M. SIMON; SUNRISE LEE;JOSEPH A. ROWAN; MICHAEL J. GURRY; MICHAEL BABICH; ALEC BURLAKOFF;MALLINCKRODT LLC; SPECGX LLC;ACTAVIS LLC; AND ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA, INC.;AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUGCORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; CARDINAL HEALTH 6 INC.;CARDINAL HEALTH TECHNOLOGIESLLC; CARDINAL HEALTH 414 LLC;CARDINAL HEALTH 200 LLC;MCKESSON CORPORATION;WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.;WALGREEN CO.; WALGREEN EASTERNCO., INC.; WALMART INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; CVS PHARMACY, INC.;CVS INDIANA L.L.C.; CVS RX SERVICES, INC.; CVS TENNESSEE DISTRIBUTION, L.L.C.; MASTERS PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC f/k/a MASTERS PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; C & R PHARMACY d/b/a KEN'SPHARMACY f/k/a LAM'S PHARMACY, INC.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDINGCOMPANY; EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.;AIDA B MAXSAM; STEVEN A HOLPERMD; STEVEN A. HOLPER, M.D., PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION;HOLPER OUT-PATIENTS MEDICALCENTER, LTD.; DOES 1 through 100; ROECORPORATIONS 1 through 100 and ZOEPHARMACIES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants.

          EGLET ADAMS ROBERT T. EGLET, ESQ., ROBERT M. ADAMS, ESQ., ERICA D. ENTSMINGER, ESQ, STEVEN B. WOLFSON, ESQ., Counsel for Plaintiff Clark County.

          ASHCRAFT & BARR | LLP, JEFFREY F. BARR, ESQ., Counsel for Defendant Aida Maxsam

          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND (FIRST REQUEST)

         Pursuant to LR IA 6-1 and 6-2, and pursuant to LR 7-1, Defendant Aida Maxsam, ("Defendants") and Plaintiff Clark County ("Plaintiff")[1], by and through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree, and respectfully request that the Court stay the filing of a Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) and LR 26-l(d), and the conducting of all discovery in this action, pending this Court's resolution of Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Pursuant to Rules 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (the "Motion to Remand") (Dkt. No. 7). This is the Parties' first request to stay the filing of a Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) and LR 26-l(d), and the conducting of all discovery, in this action.

         On September 27, 2018, counsel for Defendant and Plaintiffs conducted a discovery teleconference pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) and LR 26-l(d). During this conference, counsel respectfully agreed that a stay of all further discovery obligations under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) and LR 26-l(d) is warranted pending the outcome of the Motion to Remand, and that said stay will preserve valuable judicial resources, party resources, and time pending resolution thereof.

         If the Court denies the Motion to Remand, in whole or in part, the Parties agree to submit a Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order within thirty (30) days after entry of the Court's order on the Motion to Remand.

         As no other recently added Defendants have filed Answers in this action, no other parties are affected by this Stipulation and Order.

         For the foregoing reasons, the Parties respectfully suggest that good cause exists to grant the Parties' stipulated stay of discovery. The undersigned represent this stipulation is not intended for purposes of delay. If the Court deems it useful, the Parties are prepared to conduct a hearing on this stipulated request pursuant to LR 78-1.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a status conference is scheduled for 10:00 AM, February 3, 2020, in Courtroom 3D.

---------

Notes:

[1] Defendant and Plaintiffs are hereinafter jointly referred to as the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.