Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 11, 2021

Zayat v. C R Bard Incorporated

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:21-cv-01708
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Zayat v. C R Bard, Judge Failla stayed discovery through October 11, 2021, and adjourned the initial pretrial conference while settlement talks continued.

Who this affects

The order affects Sam Zayat and defendants C. R. Bard Incorporated and Bard Peripheral Vascular Incorporated by pausing discovery and postponing the initial pretrial conference.

What happened

In Zayat v. C R Bard Incorporated, Sam Zayat and C. R. Bard Incorporated and Bard Peripheral Vascular Incorporated jointly asked the court to pause discovery and postpone the initial pretrial conference. They said the parties had reached a settlement in principle and were finalizing a broader settlement involving similar cases.

The court agreed that pausing discovery would conserve resources and support the settlement discussions. It stayed discovery in the case through October 11, 2021.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla also adjourned the initial pretrial conference, which had been scheduled for June 18, 2021, without setting a new date. The parties were directed to update the court before the stay expired if necessary.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Zayat v. C R Bard Incorporated · No. 1:21-cv-01708
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
June 11, 2021

Background

This case is a product-liability action involving a Bard inferior vena cava filter, a prescription implantable medical device. Plaintiff Sam Zayat and defendants C. R. Bard Incorporated and Bard Peripheral Vascular Incorporated jointly requested a 120-day stay of discovery and an adjournment of the initial pretrial conference.

The parties represented that they were engaged in advanced negotiations for a global settlement covering this case and similar inferior vena cava filter cases. They said this case had been settled in principle and that they were finalizing the global settlement. They argued that a stay would conserve the resources of the court, the parties, third-party medical providers, and governmental entities, and could avoid discovery-related disputes while settlement discussions continued.

Court’s Ruling

The court found, based on the parties’ representations about the settlement discussions, that a stay of discovery was warranted. It ordered that discovery be stayed through October 11, 2021. The court also adjourned the initial pretrial conference scheduled for June 18, 2021, without setting a new date. If needed, the parties were directed to submit a letter before the discovery stay expired addressing the status of settlement discussions and proposed next steps.

This order addressed discovery and scheduling only. It did not decide the merits of the product-liability claims or state that the settlement had been finalized.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.