Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096-1/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 Actions

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. MDL 09-md-2096-PHX-FJM

Rule 16 Scheduling Order

 On February 25, 2010, we held a comprehensive scheduling conference under Rule 16,

 Fed. R. Civ. P. We considered the parties’ Jointly Proposed Case Management Plan (doc.

144) (the Plan). We granted the unopposed requests for the appointment of lead and liaison

counsel. 

 Our Order of February 1, 2010 (doc. 120) solicited deadlines for key events, with the

goal of concluding the MDL no later than July 2011. The parties could not reach agreement

and divided themselves into two plans: one for the economic injury cases and another for the

personal injury cases. Moreover, they included in their Plan deadlines for intermediate

events that are not ordinarily the subject of an order.

We agreed with counsel that the class certification issue and the Daubert issues must

be resolved first because they have the potential for ending the cases. The Plan’s proposal

for the economic injury cases falls off after the class and Daubert issues are resolved,

perhaps in recognition that the cases are likely to be either dismissed or settled after that

point. The Plan’s proposal for the personal injury cases reflects divergent views on how to

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 183 Filed 03/11/10 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

- 2 -

proceed. Defendants propose a series of trials for test cases. Plaintiffs propose a summary

jury trial for settlement purposes. The court advised the parties that it was not persuaded that

either approach was desirable. We wanted a simple, clean plan that relies on its firmness to

promote resolution. Drawing from the proposals and building on the court’s own experience,

we concluded that a unitary plan for all cases is best suited for bringing these cases to

conclusion in a fair but timely way. Accordingly, we developed the following plan and enter

it under Rule 16. It applies to both economic injury cases and personal injury cases. 

1. March 22, 2010. Deadline for the filing of a consolidated class action complaint.

2. April 1, 2010. Deadline for initial disclosures under Rule 26(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.

3. April 15, 2010. Deadline for motions to amend or join additional parties, including

retailers.

4. April 22, 2010. Deadline for responsive pleading to consolidated class action

complaint.

5. June 1, 2010. Deadline for responsive pleadings in personal injury cases.

6. July 15, 2010. Deadline for disclosure of all Plaintiffs’ expert testimony under Rule

26(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., including the reports required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B).

7. August 16, 2010. Deadline for Class Certification motion.

8. August 16, 2010. Deadline for disclosure of all Defendants’ expert testimony under

Rule 26(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., including the reports required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B).

9. October 15, 2010. Deadline for Memorandum in Response to Motion for Class

Certification.

10. October 15, 2010. Deadline for disclosure of Plaintiffs’ rebuttal expert testimony.

11. November 1, 2010. Deadline for filing all Daubert motions.

12. December 1, 2010. Deadline for all Memoranda in Response to Daubert motions.

13. December 1, 2010. Deadline for Reply to Memorandum in Response to Motion

for Class Certification.

14. December 15, 2010. Deadline for Reply to Memoranda in Response to Daubert

motions.

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 183 Filed 03/11/10 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 -

15. January 21, 2011 at 2:00 PM MST. Oral Argument on class certification motion

and Daubert motions.

16. February 1, 2011. Deadline for completion of all non-case specific discovery.

17. March 1, 2011. Deadline for filing all dispositive motions. See LRCiv. 56.1.

18. April 1, 2011. Deadline for filing all memoranda in response to dispositive

motions. See LRCiv 56.1.

19. April 15, 2011. Deadline for filing all Replies to memoranda in response to

dispositive motions.

20. May 6, 2011 at 2:00 PM MST. Oral Argument on all dispositive motions.

21. June 6, 2011. Goal for deciding all dispositive motions.

22. July 1, 2011. To the extent that cases have not been dismissed, resolved by

summary judgment or settled: (1) as to District of Arizona cases, set deadlines for completion

of case specific discovery, final supplementation under Rule 26(a)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P.,

proposed pre-trial order date, final pre-trial conference and firm trial date; (2) as to cases

from other districts, recommend that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remand

them to their respective transferor districts for setting deadlines for the completion of case

specific discovery, final supplementation under Rule 26(a)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P., proposed pretrial order date, final pre-trial conference and a firm trial date.

The parties are encouraged to cooperate with each other in ensuring compliance with

this order. There will be no extensions to the deadlines for the class certification motion, the

Daubert motions, and case dispositive motions due to case processing problems, discovery

disputes, expert problems, settlement negotiations and the like.

Written motions must comply with LRCiv 7.2. Page limits serve the important

purpose of promoting clarity. With tight editing and clear thinking all motions can fit within

the page limits imposed by LRCiv 7.2(e). Motions to exceed the page limits are most often

denied.

Discovery motions are usually a sign that someone is using poor judgment. Good

lawyers know when to hold them and when to fold them. Given the quality of the lawyers

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 183 Filed 03/11/10 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 -

here, the court does not expect to see any discovery motions. If we are wrong, discovery

motions, responses and replies are limited to two pages each.

The court renews its offer to select a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct a

master settlement conference. However, the settlement process, whether by Magistrate Judge

in-house, or by outside mediator, shall be in parallel play with this order. Thus, there is a

premium on engaging in settlement discussions sooner rather than later.

The court looks forward to working with counsel in a collaborative way to ensure the

success of this MDL.

DATED this 10th day of March, 2010.

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 183 Filed 03/11/10 Page 4 of 4