Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03922/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03922-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Guidant Corporation
Defendant
Kenneth B. Ricker
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS

105128v1 1 CASE NO. C-06-3922 MMC 

Dana N. Gwaltney, SBN 209530 

Sara J. Romano, SBN 227467

SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 

333 Bush Street, Suite 600 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 544-1900 

Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 

Attorneys for Defendant 

GUIDANT CORPORATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KENNETH B. RICKER, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

GUIDANT CORPORATION; and Does 1 to 20,

inclusive, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C-06-03922 MMC 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY 

ALL PROCEEDINGS; ORDER 

DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE STATUS 

REPORT

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their designated counsel 

that the deadlines for Defendant GUIDANT CORPORATION to answer or otherwise respond to the 

Complaint, and for the parties to participate in any and all pretrial proceedings, will be stayed and 

will be set by the MDL transferee district court in the District of Minnesota (“MDL Court”) that will 

be managing the recently-created multidistrict litigation entitled In Re Guidant Corp. Implantable 

Defibrillators Products Liability Litigation.

There are over 340 cases that have been filed in or removed to federal court against 

Defendant nationwide in which plaintiffs, like Kenneth B. Ricker, allege that they are seeking 

compensatory damages for various personal injuries allegedly caused by an implantable defibrillator. 

Approximately 240 of these cases have already been consolidated in In re: Guidant Corp. 

Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 05-1708, which is pending in the 

Case 3:06-cv-03922-MMC Document 11 Filed 07/05/06 Page 1 of 4
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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS

105128v1 2 CASE NO. C-06-3922 MMC 

United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. On November 7, 2005, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §1407, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order establishing an 

MDL and consolidating and transferring a number of cases to the MDL Court. A copy of the 

Transfer Order is attached as Exhibit A. Defendant intends to submit this case to the Judicial Panel 

on Multidistrict Litigation as a tag-along case for transfer to the MDL. Defendant expects the 

transfer of this case to be transferred to the MDL Court completed in the near future. 

There have been no previous time modifications entered in the case. The current deadline for 

Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint is July 3, 2006. The upcoming pretrial 

deadlines are as follows: 

x September 1, 2006 – last day to meet and confer regarding ADR process selection 

and proposed discovery plan;

x September 15, 2006 – last day to complete initial disclosures and file case 

management conference statement and Rule 26(f) report;

x September 22, 2006 – Initial Case Management Conference. 

In the short intervening time between now and the transfer of this case to the MDL Court, the 

time and resources of the parties and this Court should not be expended in preparing answers or 

other responses and participating in pretrial proceedings.

Pursuant to this stipulation, the parties agree that the current deadlines for Defendant to 

answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint and for the parties to participate in pretrial 

proceedings are stayed and will be set by the MDL Court. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

June 29, 2006 THE BRANDI LAW FIRM 

By: /s/ Casey A. Kaufman 

THOMAS J. BRANDI 

CASEY A. KAUFMAN 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

KENNETH B. RICKER 

Case 3:06-cv-03922-MMC Document 11 Filed 07/05/06 Page 2 of 4
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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS

105128v1 3 CASE NO. C-06-3922 MMC 

June 29, 2006 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 

By: /s/ Sara J. Romano 

DANA N. GWALTNEY 

SARA J. ROMANO 

Attorneys for Defendant 

GUIDANT CORPORATION 

Case 3:06-cv-03922-MMC Document 11 Filed 07/05/06 Page 3 of 4
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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS

105128v1 4 CASE NO. C-06-3922 MMC 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, in accordance with the agreement between the parties, and in 

light of the pending transfer of this case to a multidistrict litigation proceeding, that the current 

deadlines for Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint and for the parties to 

participate in pretrial proceedings are stayed and will be set by the MDL transferee district court in 

the District of Minnesota. 

In the event the instant action has not been transferred as of October 6, 2006, the parties shall 

file a joint status report on October 6, 2006. 

Dated: July 5, 2006 _______________________________________ 

 THE HONORABLE MAXINE M. CHESNEY 

Case 3:06-cv-03922-MMC Document 11 Filed 07/05/06 Page 4 of 4