Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05494/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05494-1/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

-1-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING FILING AND SERVICE OF DISCOVERY MOTIONS

CASE NO 5:03 CV 05494 JF/PVT

JACK B. McCOWAN, JR. (SBN: 62056)

LINDA L. NUSSER (SBN: 132154)

CHARLES E. WILSON (SBN: 225625)

GORDON & REES LLP

Embarcadero Center West

275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 986-5900

Facsimile: (415) 986-8054

MICHAEL L. O’DONNELL, Pro Hac Vice

CRAIG R. MAY, Pro Hac Vice

WHEELER TRIGG KENNEDY LLP

1801 California Street, Suite 3600

Denver, CO 80202-2617

Telephone: (303) 292-2525

Facsimile: (303) 294-1879

Attorneys for Defendants

GUIDANT CORPORATION and

ENDOVASCULAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

EDWARD V. BYRNS, individually , and as 

Executor of the ESTATE OF LUCILLE G.

BYRNS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ENDOVASCULAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

and GUIDANT CORP.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 5:03-CV-05494 JF/PVT

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER REGARDING FILING

DISCOVERY MOTIONS

Date Action Filed: December 5, 2003

Final Pretrial Conf: August 25, 2006

Trial Date: September 8, 2006

WHEREAS, in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 29, and Northern 

District Civil Local Rules 6-1(b), 6-2(a) and 7-11, defendants GUIDANT CORPORATION and

ENDOVASCULAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (“Defendants”) and plaintiff EDWARD V. 

BYRNS, individually and as executor of the Estate of LUCILLE G. BYRNS (“Plaintiffs”) in the 

GUID\1015876\936228.1

Case 5:03-cv-05494-JF Document 66 Filed 01/03/06 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-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING FILING AND SERVICE OF DISCOVERY MOTIONS

CASE NO 5:03 CV 05494 JF/PVT

above-referenced captioned case, hereby stipulate to the following regarding the filing of 

discovery motions.

1. On November 22, 2005, Plaintiffs’ counsel served a subpoena on the United

States Attorney for the Northern District of California for the production, inspection and copying

of six categories of documents (“the Subpoena”). The date of production is set for 

December 22, 2005. On December 6, 2005, the United States Attorney’s Office and Defendants’ 

separately served objections to the Subpoena. Counsel for Defendants was advised by the 

United States Attorney’s Office that they are not producing documents in response to the 

Subpoena on December 22, 2005.

2. Since that time, counsel for Defendants and Plaintiffs have met and conferred

regarding the Subpoena including, but not limited to, the proper procedure for subpoenaing the 

requested documents and the scope of the documents requested. Based on these discussions,

Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to withdraw subparts of certain documents requested, but may want to 

pursue via discussions with and (if necessary) a motion to compel other subparts of documents

requested in the Subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office. On December 20, 2005, 

Plaintiffs’ counsel wrote to the United States Attorney’s Office advising them of the withdrawal 

of subparts of certain documents requested

3. It is anticipated that further meet and confer discussions will take place in the next

several weeks between the parties’ counsel and the United States Attorney’s Office in an effort 

to either resolve or narrow the issues which may need to be addressed by the court in any future 

discovery motions. The parties’ counsel are also working with the United States Attorney’s

Office to establish a briefing schedule, prior to the production of any responsive documents, so 

that all motions related to the Subpoena may be heard by the court on the same date, but want to 

preserve their rights to seek an ex parte application for an order shortening time should one 

become necessary. Consequently, the parties would like to stipulate, with the court’s permission, 

to the following.

Case 5:03-cv-05494-JF Document 66 Filed 01/03/06 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-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING FILING AND SERVICE OF DISCOVERY MOTIONS

CASE NO 5:03 CV 05494 JF/PVT

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

4. Defendants may file and serve a motion to quash and/or a motion for a protective

order in response to the Subpoena on or before January 24, 2006. Plaintiffs’ counsel has agreed

that they will not oppose such motions based on arguments that they were untimely, but 

preserving all other objections to such motions.

5. Plaintiffs’ counsel may file and serve a motion to compel the Subpoena on or

before January 24, 2006. Defendants’ counsel has agreed that they will not oppose such a 

motion based on arguments that it was untimely, but preserving all other objections to such a

motion.

6. The parties’ counsel will meet and confer and attempt to establish a mutually

convenient briefing schedule for any discovery motions filed with the court and related to the 

Subpoena.

Dated: December 22, 2005 LIEFF, CABRASER HEIMANN

& BERNSTEIN, LLP

By: /s/

KENT L. KLAUDT

Plaintiffs EDWARD V. BYRNS, individually,

and as Executor of the ESTATE OF

LUCILLE G. BYRNS

Dated: December 22, 2005 GORDON & REES LLP

By: /s/

LINDA L. NUSSER

Attorneys for Defendants

GUIDANT CORPORATION and

ENDOVASCULAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

PURSUANT TO THIS STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December ___, 2005

________________________________________

HON. PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States District Court Judge

January 3, 2006

Case 5:03-cv-05494-JF Document 66 Filed 01/03/06 Page 3 of 3