Rhoden v. C R Bard Incorporated
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-01677
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Rhoden v. Bard: Judge Caproni granted the parties’ request to stay the case for settlement discussions and ordered a joint status update.
The stay affects Hugh M. Rhoden, Sr., C. R. Bard, Inc., and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. by pausing activity in the case; a joint case-status update was due June 30, 2021.
What happened
In Hugh M. Rhoden, Sr. v. Bard, Inc. et al., the parties said they were negotiating a possible settlement of claims involving Bard’s inferior vena cava filters. They jointly asked the court to pause the case and its deadlines.
The parties requested a 90-day pause covering discovery and other pretrial activity so they could continue settlement discussions. They also asked to file a joint update if dismissal papers were not filed during that period.
Judge Valerie E. Caproni granted the application and stayed the case. She ordered the parties to provide a joint update about the case by June 30, 2021.
The detailed version
- Rhoden v. C R Bard Incorporated · No. 1:21-cv-01677
- Valerie Caproni
- Mar. 31, 2021
Background
Plaintiff Hugh M. Rhoden, Sr. and defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. jointly asked the court to pause the case for 90 days. The parties said they were pursuing settlement negotiations involving this case and other cases concerning alleged injuries from Bard’s inferior vena cava filters. They stated that some plaintiffs had opted out of an earlier settlement and that the parties were continuing discussions concerning those cases, including this one.
The Request
The parties asked the court to stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines so counsel could focus on settlement negotiations. They also requested permission to file a joint status report if Plaintiff had not filed dismissal papers within 90 days after the stay was granted.
Ruling
Judge Valerie E. Caproni wrote: “Application GRANTED. This case is STAYED.” The court ordered a joint update on the status of the case by June 30, 2021. The order did not state that the stay would last exactly 90 days.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.