Whitaker v. C R Bard Inc
1:20-cv-01668
| E.D. Cal. | Sep 15, 2020Background
- Case was filed in Dallas County, Texas, removed by defendant Bard to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and later severed/transferred to the Eastern District of California and assigned to this Court.
- Plaintiff and Bard have been engaged in settlement discussions before and after transfer; parties jointly sought a temporary 90‑day stay of discovery and all pretrial deadlines to continue negotiations.
- The joint motion was brought under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d), arguing a stay would conserve party and judicial resources and was not sought for delay.
- The parties requested continuation of the initial Scheduling Conference for 90 days and agreed to complete scheduling/discovery later if settlement efforts failed.
- The Court granted the parties’ request: it stayed all discovery and pretrial deadlines until the Initial Scheduling Conference (reset for December 9, 2020), required a Joint Scheduling Report one week before the conference, allowed telephonic appearances, and stated the conference will be vacated if a settlement notice is filed prior to the date.
- The Court also directed parties to file future pleadings under the reassigned case number (1:20‑cv‑01668‑DAD‑BAM) and ordered the clerk to file the stipulation and this order in both case files.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to stay discovery and pretrial deadlines and continue the Initial Scheduling Conference to permit settlement negotiations | A 90‑day stay will facilitate settlement, conserve resources, and is not for delay | Agreed with plaintiff; joint request to conserve resources and pursue settlement | Granted: discovery and pretrial deadlines stayed until the Initial Scheduling Conference (Dec. 9, 2020); conference may be vacated if notice of settlement is filed |
| Whether parties must comply with scheduling requirements following the stay | Parties will comply and file a Joint Scheduling Report if settlement fails | Same; parties agreed to meet scheduling obligations if needed | Court ordered Joint Scheduling Report one week before the conference and allowed telephone appearance |
| Administrative case management after transfer | N/A | N/A | Court directed filings to new case number (1:20‑cv‑01668‑DAD‑BAM) and instructed the clerk to file the stipulation and order in both related dockets |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998) (recognizing district court discretion over pretrial discovery matters)
- Thermal Design, Inc. v. Am. Soc’y of Heating, Refrigerating & Air‑Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 755 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 2014) (affirming broad trial‑court control over pretrial procedure)
- Cook v. Kartridg Pak Co., 840 F.2d 602 (8th Cir. 1988) (district courts have latitude to control pretrial procedure)
- CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265 (9th Cir. 1962) (recognizing courts’ inherent power to manage their dockets for efficiency)