Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096-39/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:

All Personal Injury Actions.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-md-2096-PHX-FJM

ORDER

We have before us defendants’ motion for reconsideration (doc. 1382) of our Order

on Motion to Exclude Causation Experts (doc. 1360). Because defendants’ motion does not

identify any matter overlooked or misunderstood, we do not order a response from plaintiffs.

See LRCiv 7.2(g)(2).

We deny a motion for reconsideration “absent a showing of manifest error or a

showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [our] attention

earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). A motion for reconsideration may not

“repeat any oral or written argument made by the movant in support of or in opposition to

the motion that resulted in the Order.” Id. We grant a motion for reconsideration in only

“highly unusual circumstances,” when we are “presented with newly discovered evidence,

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Carroll

v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 944 (9th Cir. 2003) (applying Rule 59(e), Fed. R. Civ. P.). Mere

disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration, nor should

reconsideration be used to ask the court to rethink its analysis. Bobolas v. Does, 2011 WL

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1388 Filed 03/18/11 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 -

810325, *1 (D. Ariz. 2011).

Defendants first argue that Drs. Mitra and Pike’s opinions that ordinary use of Zicam

can deliver zinc to the olfactory epithelium (“OE”) through diffusion does not qualify as

admissible scientific knowledge. Motion to Reconsider at 5. Defendants claim that in

applying the principle of diffusion, the experts unjustifiably extrapolate from an accepted

premise to an unfounded conclusion. However, we previously rejected this exact argument

in concluding “that Dr. Mitra’s extrapolation based on the principle of diffusion and Zicam’s

propensity to release zinc ions that zinc could reach the OE is not a significant analytic gap,”

and that “defendants’ questions about the rate of substance dispersion, clearance and

absorption” go to weight, rather than admissibility of the opinion. Order on Motion to

Exclude Causation Experts at 22. We again reject defendants’ contention that an expert’s

opinion is not based on scientific knowledge because he does not cite studies directly

demonstrating every point that underlies his theory. Defendants also contend that the

experts’ failure to review all relevant studies is fatal to the admissibility of their opinions.

Motion to Reconsider at 13. As we previously explained with respect to Dr. Davis,

defendants may explore an expert’s decision not to address all contradictory research through

cross-examination. Order on Motion to Exclude Causation Experts at 19.

Defendants next contend that our decision to admit Dr. Pike’s opinion that zinc ions

may reach the OE through electro-osmosis is erroneous because his assumption of a

significant electrical gradient lacks foundation. Motion to Reconsider at 15. Dr. Pike asserts

that the nasal pH is 6.35 and Zicam has a “buffered pH of 7.2, thus its application into the

nose would make the nose more electronegative.” Pike Report at 13. He further contends

that the “relative electronegativity compared to the mouth and pharynx, would result in a

higher net retention of zinc cations in the nose and a slower elimination of zinc cations by

natural nasal clearing mechanisms.” Id. While the basis for Dr. Pike’s potentially

contradictory statement in his deposition that the nasal cavity has a pH level of 7.4 is unclear,

it does not render his opinion that differences in electronegativity could cause zinc ions from

Zicam to move through the nasal cavity unreliable. The opinion is based on reliable

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1388 Filed 03/18/11 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 -

scientific principles. Daubert Order at 26. Additionally, as we previously concluded, the

extrapolation from the principle of electro-osmosis to the conclusion that zinc from Zicam

may reach the OE does not entail a large analytic gap. The absence of analysis of the exact

amount needed to cause anosmia does not leave Dr. Pike’s opinion unreliable. 

Next, defendants argue that the experts’ opinions are unreliable because they do not

adequately establish a dose-response curve. Motion to Reconsider at 18. Defendants

previously made this same argument. See Motion to Exclude Causation Experts at 32 (doc.

1061). We determined that there is no large analytic gap between the established toxicity of

zinc and the possibility that zinc ions may reach the OE to the conclusion that Zicam could

be toxic. As explained, the absence of testing and data on the amount necessary to cause

anosmia does not make the experts’ causation opinions inadmissible. 

Finally, defendants contend that the experts’ opinions are unreliable because they do

not account for all relevant data. Motion to Reconsider at 20. Defendants object to our

conclusion that the experts’ failure to address all pertinent studies goes to the weight, rather

than the admissibility of their opinions. See Order on Motion to Exclude Causation Experts

at 28. But disagreement with our conclusion does not make it manifestly erroneous.

Defendants’ request that we rethink our analysis is not the proper subject of a motion to

reconsider. 

Because defendants have failed to establish any basis for reconsideration, IT IS

ORDERED DENYING defendants’ “Motion for Reconsideration of Court’s Daubert

Order” (doc. 1382).

DATED this 17th day of March, 2011.

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1388 Filed 03/18/11 Page 3 of 3