Holness v. CR Bard Inc
- Victor Marrero
- 1:20-cv-06716
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Holness v. C.R. Bard, Judge Marrero granted a 90-day stay of all activities and adjourned the initial conference while settlement talks continued.
Andrea Holness and C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.; all activities and deadlines in the case were stayed for 90 days, and the initial conference was adjourned.
What happened
In Andrea Holness v. C.R. Bard, Inc., et al., the parties jointly asked the court to pause the case for 90 days because they were engaged in settlement negotiations involving an implanted Bard inferior vena cava filter. They said the pause would conserve the parties’ and others’ resources, including medical providers and governmental entities involved in producing records.
The parties also asked to postpone the initial conference scheduled for December 18, 2020. The request concerned case management and settlement discussions, not whether Holness or Bard was legally right about the product-liability claims.
Judge Victor Marrero granted the request. He stayed all activities and deadlines in the case for 90 days and adjourned the December 18 initial conference.
The detailed version
- Holness v. CR Bard Inc · No. 1:20-cv-06716
- Victor Marrero
- Dec. 11, 2020
Background
This matter concerns alleged injuries associated with implantation of a Bard inferior vena cava filter, a prescription medical device. The case had been transferred to the Southern District of New York from the Northern District of Texas. The court had previously approved dismissal of all claims against McKesson Corporation without prejudice, and McKesson was no longer a defendant in the case.
The parties reported that they were actively negotiating a global settlement involving this and other similar cases. They said that a 90-day pause would allow them to focus on settlement and avoid unnecessary discovery, including the collection and review of medical records and other information. They also stated that similar cases in a multidistrict proceeding had been settled in principle.
Request
The parties jointly requested a 90-day stay of all activities in the case and an adjournment of the initial pretrial conference scheduled for December 18, 2020. They argued that the court had authority to control discovery and its docket, and that facilitating settlement discussions provided good cause for a short-term stay.
Ruling
Judge Victor Marrero granted the request. The order states: “All activities and deadlines in this case are hereby stayed for 90 days,” and the initial conference scheduled for December 18, 2020, was adjourned. The order did not decide the merits of the product-liability claims or state that the parties had completed a settlement.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.