Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096-4/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

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:

All Personal Injury Actions.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. MDL 09-2096-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendants’ “Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Response to

Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions to Personal Injury

Plaintiffs” (doc. 544), plaintiffs’ response (doc. 587), and defendants’ reply (doc. 616). 

Defendants propound one interrogatory to each plaintiff asking whether the plaintiff

“sniffed” Zicam products, the details of any sniffing, and two requests for admissions, asking

each plaintiff to admit that he or she did or did not sniff Zicam products. Plaintiffs refused

defendants’ request to include questions about sniffing in the Plaintiffs’ Fact Sheet (“PFS”).

Defendants contend that the discovery is relevant to general causation because plaintiffs must

show that the product reached the smell tissue in a dose sufficient to cause a toxic effect, and

to specific causation, i.e. if a particular plaintiff can show he or she was injured. Defendants

further claim that because the Zicam label warns users not to sniff the product, the discovery

is relevant to comparative fault and product misuse.

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 626 Filed 07/23/10 Page 1 of 2
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 -

Our allowance of case specific discovery after the MDL does not preclude it during

the MDL. Nothing in Case Management Order #2 (doc. 398) prohibits written discovery to

individual plaintiffs in addition to the PFS. Moreover, the court’s consent to the PFS process

was intended to minimize total discovery, but not to preempt all other written discovery that

addresses generalized issues. By permitting discovery about issues that are genuinely unique

to each plaintiff until after July 1, 2011, the case management schedule promotes litigation

efficiency by allowing parties to focus on common issues first. In furtherance of that goal,

we encourage the parties to address all relevant, generalized factual issues sooner rather than

later in the pretrial process, even if the issues are outside the scope of the PFS. The question

of whether or not plaintiffs sniffed is such an issue. The case specific discovery allowed

after July 1, 2011 contemplates non-common issues such as specific items of damages and

the like.

Additionally, the proposed interrogatory and requests for admission are relevant to

causation issues and possible affirmative defenses. The discovery is brief, narrow in scope,

and not unduly burdensome. Nor is it duplicative. The term "sniff" is not vague and is

appropriately defined according to its Merriam Webster dictionary definition. 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants’ motion to compel plaintiffs'

responses to their First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Admission (doc. 544).

DATED this 22nd day of July, 2010.

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 626 Filed 07/23/10 Page 2 of 2