Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096-28/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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 09-md-2096-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Defendants filed a “Motion to Dismiss for Plaintiffs’ Failure to Comply with CourtOrdered Discovery” (doc. 1162), seeking the dismissal of some of the individual personal

injury plaintiffs. The court has before it the parties’ “Stipulation for Extension of Briefing

Deadlines” (doc. 1203). We also have a response in opposition to defendants’ motion to

dismiss filed by six individual plaintiffs (doc. 1202), and another response filed by two other

plaintiffs (doc. 1208). The parties request a forty-five day extension of the briefing

deadlines, so that plaintiffs’ response would be due on January 20, 2011, and defendants’

reply would be due on January 31, 2011. The parties point to holiday scheduling conflicts

and ongoing settlement negotiations. Despite our reservations explained below, we grant the

parties’ request for an extension. We also strike plaintiffs’ responses. 

First, the parties state that we have not yet set a hearing date for defendants’ motion

to dismiss. Stipulation at 1. However, our decision as to whether to grant oral argument on

the motion has no bearing on the propriety of extending the briefing deadlines. That we have

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1215 Filed 12/06/10 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 -

not set a hearing is irrelevant. Motions are rarely scheduled for oral argument. 

Second, there appears to be some tension between the request for a lengthy extension

of the deadlines and the defendants’ contentions in their motion to dismiss. The parties cite

ongoing settlement negotiations as a reason for pushing back the briefing deadlines.

Stipulation at 1–2. However, defendants state in their motion to dismiss that the discovery

that certain plaintiffs have failed to provide would allow “Defendants to assess their

defenses, prepare for pretrial and trial activities, and evaluate settlement. . . . This imbalance

hinders the Parties’ ability to fairly assess the merits of the respective positions and to resolve

the litigation by motion, at trial, or by settlement.” Motion to Dismiss at 8. Thus, there is

inconsistency between defendants’ stated urgent need for plaintiffs’ discovery responses and

the proposal to delay the deadlines for their motion by a month and a half. Defendants go

on to explain that it is “impossible” for defendant Matrixx “to conduct global settlement

discussions without knowing the full extent of their liability exposure.” Motion to Dismiss

at 11. We fail to understand how settlement negotiations could be the basis for delaying the

briefing on the motion to dismiss, the resolution of which is allegedly vital to any settlement

agreement. 

Third, the stipulation was filed just after six plaintiffs separately filed a response to

defendants’ motion to dismiss (docs. 1202) and just before another two plaintiffs filed their

own response (doc. 1208). These individual plaintiffs address the merits of defendants’

motion, and contend that they have adequately responded to defendants’ discovery requests.

Plaintiffs’ responses were neither filed nor apparently approved by plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel,

as required by Case Management Order #1 (doc. 182). The almost concurrent filing of the

two plaintiffs’ responses and the stipulation to extend the deadline to respond demonstrates

a lack of coordination between plaintiffs and Lead Counsel. This is a not a new problem.

See docs. 510, 673, 831 and 876. A principal purpose in appointing Lead Counsel is to avoid

inconsistent filings. 

We therefore strike the two plaintiffs’ responses because they fail to comply with

Case Management Order #1 at 4–5 (“No pleadings or other papers shall be filed or tasks

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1215 Filed 12/06/10 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 -

performed by Plaintiffs’ Counsel in the Personal Injury Actions without the advance approval

of Lead Counsel for the Personal Injury Actions....[A]ll pleadings or other papers filed with

the Court on behalf of any Plaintiff in the Personal Injury Action shall be filed through Lead

Counsel for the Personal Injury Actions.”). 

Notwithstanding these misgivings, we grant the stipulated extension because the

proposed deadlines do not jeopardize the MDL schedule. Neither the extension nor its

consequences shall be the basis for any amendments to the Rule 16 order. 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING the parties’ request for an extension of

briefing deadlines (doc. 1203). Plaintiffs’ response to defendants’ motion to dismiss shall

be due January 20, 2011, and defendants’ reply shall be due January 31, 2011. IT IS

FURTHER ORDERED STRIKING plaintiffs’ two responses (docs. 1202 & 1208). 

DATED this 3rd day of December, 2010.

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1215 Filed 12/06/10 Page 3 of 3