Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01529/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01529-2/pdf.json

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

---

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:

Adjal et al. v. Matrixx Initiatives Inc. et

al., CV-10-0729,

Adams, et al v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.

et al., CV-09-1529,

Vance v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al., CV-10-1637.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-md-2096-PHX-FJM

ORDER

We have before us defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss For Plaintiffs’ Failure To Comply

With Court-Ordered Discovery” (doc. 1162), two responses from plaintiffs (docs. 1320 &

1352), and defendants’ reply (doc. 1332). We also have defendants’ “Status Report re:

Defendants Motion to Dismiss” (doc. 1339), indicating that all but ten plaintiffs subject to

defendants’ motion agreed to settle their personal injury claims. Therefore, this order applies

only to the ten remaining plaintiffs, who are part of three different actions: Adjal et al. v.

Matrixx Initiatives Inc. et al., CV-10-0729; Adams, et al v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al.,

CV-09-1529; and Vance v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al., CV-10-1637. 

We have a response from the remaining plaintiffs in the Adams action (doc. 1320).

Case 2:09-cv-01529-FJM Document 23 Filed 02/24/11 Page 1 of 5
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 -

We earlier struck a response from the Adjal plaintiffs for failure to comply with our case

management order (doc. 1202). See Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. 1215).

The Adjal plaintiffs later filed an untimely response to defendants’ motion (doc. 1352).

Plaintiff Christopher Vance did not respond to defendants’ motion. 

I

Our Case Management Order 2 (“CMO”) requires every personal injury plaintiff to

complete a plaintiff fact sheet (“PFS”), and return it within forty-five days of receipt (doc.

398). If a plaintiff fails to serve a completed PFS, the CMO requires defendants’ lead

counsel to send a warning letter to plaintiff’s counsel requesting compliance within fifteen

days. If plaintiff does not then respond, defendants may move for appropriate relief. In

addition, defendants have propounded one interrogatory and two requests for admission on

whether plaintiffs “sniffed” the Zicam product. 

Pursuant to Rule 37, Fed. R. Civ. P., we may dismiss an action where a party fails to

obey a discovery order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). “Dismissal is a harsh penalty and

is to be imposed only in extreme circumstances.” Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d

128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). When deciding whether to dismiss an action for failure to comply

with court-ordered discovery, we consider five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of

prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA)

Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). Moreover, an MDL

court’s discretion is broadened by the number and complexity of actions before it, and its

responsibility to “promote the just and efficient conduct of actions that are coordinated or

consolidated for pretrial purposes.” Id. at 1252.

After defendants filed their motion, the six Adjal plaintiffs cured their deficiencies.

Adjal Response at 4 (doc. 1352). One of the two Adams plaintiffs, Carl Schabl, has also

complied with discovery requests, while deficiencies remain as to the two other Adams

plaintiffs, Glen Dunn and Russell Hill. See Adams Response at 4 n.7 (doc. 1320). Plaintiff

Case 2:09-cv-01529-FJM Document 23 Filed 02/24/11 Page 2 of 5
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

 We previously granted a motion to withdraw for counsel for plaintiff Christopher

Vance (doc. 1161). Former counsel explained that they made repeated attempts to contact

plaintiff regarding the need to comply with defendants’ discovery requests, and that plaintiff

was non-responsive.

- 3 -

Christopher Vance has not fulfilled his discovery obligations. 

II

A

We grant defendants’ motion to dismiss as to plaintiff Christopher Vance. He has

neither complied with court-ordered discovery nor responded to defendants’ motion to

dismiss.1

 Because he has failed to prosecute and comply with court orders, we dismiss his

case with prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. 

B

Plaintiffs Glen Dunn and Russell Hill concede that they are still not in compliance.

See Adams Response at 4 n.7 (doc. 1320). Both plaintiffs submitted amended PFSs, but in

response to many of the fact sheets’ questions, plaintiffs state only “will supplement.” Reply

to Motion to Dismiss, ex. D-3, “Amended Dunn PFS” (doc. 1334-4) & ex. F-3, “Amended

Hill PFS” (doc. 1334-4). Plaintiffs filed their complaint on April 15, 2010, see Adams

Complaint (doc. 260). Defendants’ motion to dismiss has been pending since November 19,

2010. Additionally, after receiving the amended PFSs, defendants again requested that

plaintiffs supplement their submissions, but apparently to no avail. See Reply to Motion to

Dismiss, exs. D-4 & F-4 (doc. 1334-4). 

The five factor analysis for motions to dismiss for failure to comply with courtordered discovery favors dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims. The first two factors, the public’s

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and our need to manage our docket, require at

the very least that plaintiffs explain the ongoing delay and give the court and defendants an

indication of when they will complete their discovery. Even as of this late date, plaintiffs

have offered no such information. The risk of prejudice to the defendants, factor three, is

now significant. The deadline for dispositive motions is rapidly approaching, and

Case 2:09-cv-01529-FJM Document 23 Filed 02/24/11 Page 3 of 5
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 -

defendants are entitled to factual information about each plaintiff in order to present their

case on summary judgment. Because we do not know when or if plaintiffs will comply with

our orders, the fourth and fifth factors are not applicable. Public policy favors disposition

on the merits, but plaintiffs’ continuing failure to fulfill their discovery options suggests that

may never be possible. We cannot assess the availability of less drastic sanctions in the

absence of any affirmation that plaintiffs will comply with our orders prior to the deadline

for dispositive motions. We therefore grant defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims of

plaintiffs Glen Dunn and Russell Hill with prejudice.

C

We deny defendants’ motion as to all plaintiffs who have cured their discovery

deficiencies. These include the six remaining Adjal plaintiffs, and plaintiff Carl Schnabl of

the Adams action. We again consider five factors. First, because plaintiffs have cured their

discovery deficiencies, resolution of plaintiffs’ actions on the merits is now possible.

Second, while we are troubled by plaintiffs’ delay in complying with court-ordered

discovery, in this instance it does not interfere with our ability to manage our docket. The

parties do not need any modifications to our Rule 16 deadlines, and the just and efficient

resolution of this MDL remains on schedule. 

Third, we acknowledge that plaintiffs’ eventual compliance does not obviate all

prejudice to defendants. However, plaintiffs have provided the required discovery at least

soon enough to avoid impairing “defendant[s’] ability to go to trial or threaten to interfere

with the rightful decision of the case.” In re Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1227.

Plaintiffs’ belated compliance is not the kind of last-minute production that would warrant

dismissal of their claims. See Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distributors, 69

F.3d 337, 354 (9th Cir. 1995). We note that the complexities of an MDL heighten the

possibility of prejudice to defendants, although we assume the agreed-upon settlement of the

majority of the actions in this MDL has alleviated some pressure on defendants. While

plaintiffs’ failure to explain their delay means that defendants are not required to demonstrate

actual prejudice, we note that defendants have not suggested that the delay has caused a loss

Case 2:09-cv-01529-FJM Document 23 Filed 02/24/11 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

of evidence or memory. See In re Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1228 (“Prejudice

normally consists of loss of evidence and memory; it may also consist of costs or burdens of

litigation, although it may not consist of the mere pendency of the lawsuit itself.”) (citations

omitted). Defendants have clearly expended significant (and avoidable) time and expense

in obtaining complete discovery from the plaintiffs subject to this motion. However, added

expense alone does not outweigh the public policy in favor of disposition of plaintiffs’ cases

on the merits, the fourth factor. Plaintiffs’ (belated) compliance enables defendants to

address the substance of the claims. The alternative sanction of an award of fees and costs

is adequate. Defendants may file a motion no later than ten days after the entry of this order,

and no longer than five pages, detailing the fees and costs reasonably attributed to the six

Adjal plaintiffs and Carl Schnabl of the Adams action.

III

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING IN PAR T AND DENYING IN PART

defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss Case For Plaintiffs’ Failure To Comply With Court-Ordered

Discovery” (doc. 1162). IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants’ motion as to plaintiffs

Christopher Vance, Glen Dunn, and Russell Hill. IT IS ORDERED DENYING

defendants’ motion as to plaintiffs Mahieddine Adjal, Joseph D’Amico, Jr., Krista Edwards,

Kevin Murray, Diane Nygard, Joseph Rubbo, and Carl Schnabl. IT IS FURTHER

ORDERED DISMISSING with prejudice Vance v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al.,

CV-10-1637, and plaintiffs Glen Dunn and Russell Hill, in Adams v. Matrixx Initiatives,

Inc., et al., CV-09-1529. 

DATED this 24th day of February, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-01529-FJM Document 23 Filed 02/24/11 Page 5 of 5