Patton v. C R Bard Incorporated
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-01675
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Patton v. C R Bard Incorporated, Judge Koeltl granted the parties’ request to stay all case activities for 90 days while they finalized settlement.
The plaintiffs, Lyn E. Patton and Kennith Patton, and the defendants, C. R. Bard Incorporated and Bard Peripheral Vascular Incorporated, were affected by the 90-day pause in the case.
What happened
Patton v. C R Bard Incorporated concerns a product-liability lawsuit involving an implanted Bard inferior vena cava filter. Plaintiffs Lyn E. Patton and Kennith Patton, and defendants C. R. Bard Incorporated and Bard Peripheral Vascular Incorporated, jointly told the court that they had reached a settlement in principle and were finalizing its details.
The parties asked the court to pause discovery and all other case activities for 90 days. They said a pause would conserve the parties’ resources, avoid unnecessary demands on medical providers and government entities, and reduce possible discovery disputes while settlement discussions continued.
The filing states that Judge John G. Koeltl granted the application. The court’s order therefore granted the requested temporary pause, but the provided text does not separately describe the disposition of the request to adjourn the initial pretrial conference.
The detailed version
- Patton v. C R Bard Incorporated · No. 1:21-cv-01675
- John Koeltl
- June 4, 2021
Background
Plaintiffs Lyn E. Patton and Kennith Patton brought a product-liability action involving a Bard inferior vena cava filter, described as a prescription implantable medical device. The defendants named in the filing are C. R. Bard Incorporated and Bard Peripheral Vascular Incorporated.
The parties submitted a joint letter requesting a temporary stay and an adjournment of the initial pretrial conference while they pursued settlement. They stated that the parties had settled this case in principle and were finalizing a global settlement covering this and similar inferior vena cava filter cases. The filing also described related cases in a multidistrict litigation proceeding and other courts.
Requested relief and reasons
The parties requested a 90-day stay of discovery and, at the end of the letter, asked the court to stay all activities in the case for 90 days. They argued that the stay would promote judicial efficiency, conserve the parties’ resources, avoid burdens on third-party medical providers and governmental entities, and reduce the likelihood of discovery-related disputes while settlement negotiations continued.
Ruling
The document bears the court’s notation “APPLICATION GRANTED” and “SO ORDERED.” Thus, Judge John G. Koeltl granted the parties’ application for the requested temporary pause. The provided text does not separately state the ruling on the request to adjourn the initial pretrial conference or provide any ruling on the underlying product-liability claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.