Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01824/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01824-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Frank D. Marcum, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV-04-1824-PHX RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Purdue Pharma Co., et. al., )

)

Defendants. ) )

Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Proceedings

filed July 13, 2005 (doc. # 136), and Plaintiff's Motion to

Extend Time to Respond to Abbott's Motion for Summary Judgment

filed July 22, 2005 (doc. # 143). Plaintiff claims to have

suffered injuries as a result of using Defendants' painkiller

OxyContin, and Plaintiff's counsel has petitioned the Judicial

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to create a multidistrict

litigation case for similar OxyContin cases now pending in

several districts. Based on the possibility that a

multidistrict litigation case may be formed, Plaintiff's counsel

now seeks to stay this suit until the Judicial Panel rules on

Case 2:04-cv-01824-RCB Document 176 Filed 09/29/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

the petition before it. Mot. to Stay (doc. # 136) at p.1-3.

Defendants have filed responses in opposition to Plaintiff's

motion on July 28, 2005 (doc. ## 151-152).

The fact discovery deadline in this case has already

passed, and although the continued oral deposition of Dr. John

Porter remains scheduled for October 15, 2005 (doc. ## 173,

175), nothing else suggests that a stay would result in a

tremendous saving of the litigants' and counsels' resources, or

would otherwise benefit the litigation process. Accordingly,

Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Proceedings is denied at this time.

The case will continue to be governed by the Scheduling Order

entered December 8, 2004 (doc. # 104).

Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Abbott's

Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Plaintiff shall file

his response to Abbott's Motion for Summary Judgment within 30

(thirty) days of the filing of this order. 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Proceedings

(doc. # 136) is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Extend

Time to Respond to Abbott's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc.

# 143) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for Plaintiff to

respond to Abbott's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. # 143)

. . . 

Case 2:04-cv-01824-RCB Document 176 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

shall be extended to 30 (thirty) days from the entry of this

order.

DATED this 29th day of September, 2005.

Copies to counsel of record

Case 2:04-cv-01824-RCB Document 176 Filed 09/29/05 Page 3 of 3