Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096-48/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN RE: Zicam Cold Remedy Marketing,

Sales Practices, and Products Liability

Litigation.

_________________________________

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

Doris Raub v. Matrixx Initiatives,

Inc. et al.

No. CV-11-0561

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-md-2096-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff Doris

Raub’s claims (doc. 1446), plaintiff’s response (doc. 1469), and defendants’ reply (doc.

1474). Plaintiff requests that we deny summary judgment and recommend that the Panel on

Multidistrict Litigation (“Panel”) remand this action to the United States District Court for

the Northern District of Texas. 

Plaintiff filed her complaint in the District Court of Wichita County, Texas on

February 3, 2011. Defendants removed to the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Texas on March 1, 2011, and the case was consolidated with this MDL on March

17, 2011. Plaintiff alleges that her use of Zicam Cold Remedy Oral Mist caused the

permanent and irreversible loss of her ability to smell and taste. See Raub v. Zicam LLC,

et al., No. CV-11-0561, Notice of Removal, ex. 1, “Petition” at 4 (doc. 1-1). Plaintiff asserts

causes of action for (1) unreasonably dangerous product design and manufacturing; (2)

unreasonably dangerous product marketing; (3) misrepresentation; (4) violation of the Texas

Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (5) breach of express and implied warranties; (6) negligence;

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1491 Filed 07/06/11 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

1

 For a description of the intranasal products and plaintiffs’ evidence of general

causation, see Daubert Order (doc. 1360).

- 2 -

and (7) gross negligence/fraud/malice. 

The vast majority of claims in this MDL arise from the use of Zicam intranasal

products, which were recalled from the market following the Food and Drug

Administration’s issuance of a Warning Letter about safety concerns with the intranasal

products.1

 In contrast, plaintiff alleges injury as a result of her use of an oral product. The

issue then is whether recently consolidated personal injury claims not related to the intranasal

products may be adjudicated on the basis of the pretrial proceedings in this MDL. 

The deadline for disclosure of plaintiffs’ expert testimony was October 15, 2010.

Rule 16 Scheduling Order at 2 (doc. 183). Defendants argue that plaintiff has produced no

evidence that Zicam Cold Remedy Oral Mist can cause anosmia, and therefore, plaintiff’s

claims all fail under Texas law. Defendants also argue that the admission of untimely expert

testimony would be inconsistent with the purposes of this MDL, and would be disruptive of

our Rule 16 Scheduling Order, under which the MDL is to be terminated soon.

Plaintiff agrees with defendants that the MDL plaintiffs have not produced expert

testimony supporting a causal link between smell dysfunction and the Zicam oral products.

Pursuant to Rule 56(d), Fed. R. Civ. P., plaintiff declares she cannot present facts essential

to justify her opposition to defendant’s motion. Plaintiff explains that by the time her case

was transferred to the MDL, almost every significant deadline had passed, and that she needs

more time to locate an expert on the causal connection between her injuries and Zicam Oral

Mist. Plaintiff’s lawyer states that he is in the process of locating an expert on causation.

Affidavit of Joe Steimel (doc. 1469-2). Accordingly, plaintiff requests that we recommend

that the Panel remand this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District

of Texas. Defendants argue that plaintiff has failed to meet her burden under Rule 56(d) to

provide “specified reasons” why she cannot yet present the evidence she needs. They claim

counsel’s unfounded speculation that the necessary evidence exists is insufficient. 

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1491 Filed 07/06/11 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

- 3 -

We consider plaintiff’s Rule 56 request in light of the procedural history of her claims.

Certainly if plaintiff’s action had been pending here through the duration of this MDL,

counsel’s unsubstantiated assertion that a causation expert can yet be obtained would be

unavailing. Plaintiff has not set forth the “specific facts” she hopes to elicit from discovery,

or shown that the “facts sought exist.” Family Home and Finance Center, Inc. v. Federal

Home Loan Mortg., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008). However, Rule 56 contemplates that

the parties would have had a reasonable amount of time to conduct discovery and identify

expert evidence, pursuant to a scheduling order. We do not require a party who filed her

claims less than four months ago to meet the same standard in justifying a lack of necessary

evidence. 

This MDL was created to “promote the just and efficient conduct” of the member

actions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). The Panel centralized this litigation to ensure that

“pretrial proceedings are conducted in a streamlined manner leading to the just and

expeditious resolution of all actions to the overall benefit of the parties.” Transfer Order at

2 (doc. 1). The just resolution of claims added to this MDL after the passage of major

deadlines depends on Lead Counsel’s adequate representation of plaintiff’s interests prior to

consolidation. Defendants note that as of the expert discovery deadline, fourteen MDL

plaintiffs claimed their injuries arose from use of a Zicam oral product, five of whom used

the Oral Mist product. See Motion at 3 n.2, 6 n.4. Nevertheless, plaintiffs failed to produce

evidence related to the oral products. 

We do not know why, notwithstanding other plaintiffs’ assertion of oral productsrelated claims, Lead Counsel did not produce evidence of causation related to these products.

However, it is worth noting that in deciding to centralize the Zicam actions, the Panel

explained that the nine initial actions “share factual questions regarding, inter alia, the

marketing and sale of three Zicam nasal cold remedy products.” Transfer Order at 2

(emphasis added). The parties have not objected to the inclusion of claims related to oral

products, but such actions were not part of the Panel’s original conception of the MDL’s

breadth, and have not played a significant role in the proceedings. Neither defendants’

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1491 Filed 07/06/11 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

- 4 -

Daubert Motion nor Motion for Summary Judgment addressed the oral products. Therefore,

the MDL plaintiffs’ failure to produce evidence of causation related to the oral products does

not necessarily reflect the merits of plaintiff’s claims. 

Given the focus in this MDL on the intranasal products, we cannot say that the

proceedings here accommodated plaintiff’s “legitimate discovery needs,” and that a grant of

summary judgment for defendants would be a just resolution of plaintiff’s claims. See 28

U.S.C. § 1407; Transfer Order at 2. We believe plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable

opportunity to conduct discovery and produce causation evidence. However, the discovery

phase of the MDL has long since concluded. Accordingly, we will recommend that the Panel

remand this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendant’s motion for summary judgment

(doc. 1446). 

DATED this 6th day of July, 2011.

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1491 Filed 07/06/11 Page 4 of 4