Opinion
Page 1249a
227 Cal.App.4th 1249a __ Cal.Rptr.3d __ KATHLEEN HARDIN et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. PDX, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants. A137035 California Court of Appeals, First District, Third Division July 21, 2014THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on June 19, 2014, 227 Cal.App.4th 159; ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___, is modified as follows and the petition for rehearing is DENIED:
At page 12, immediately preceding the last sentence of the first paragraph [227 Cal.App.4th 170, advance report, 2d par., line 12], insert the following text: PDX also asserts that Hardin cannot prevail on her products liability theory as a matter of law because PDX distributes drug information, and “ ‘information’ is not a ‘product’ for purposes of product liability claims.” But Hardin’s theory is that PDX’s software program, not the information it produces, is the defective product. PDX has not argued, let alone shown, that Hardin cannot prevail under that theory. Maybe so, but at this early juncture we cannot so conclude. (See Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 318 [“The causes of action need only be shown to have ‘minimal merit.’ ”].)
The petition for rehearing is denied. There is no change in the judgment.