of testing to safeguard against known risks. Further, Defendant argues that to require manufacturers to develop methodologies and conduct research to discover a problem that no one in the medical community had reported before 2001 would be overly burdensome. The Court agrees. The link between an intra-articular pain pump and chondrolysis was remote at the time Defendant manufacturer the PCIP. As such, Defendant did not breach its duty to care by failing to conduct some theoretical test that could have unearthed possible evidence of chondrolysis. See Rodriguez, 680 F.3d at 574 (“The law does not require a company to test for hidden risks that neither it nor the medical community had a reasonable basis to suspect.”); Phillippi v. Stryker Corp., 2010 WL 2650596, *3 (E.D.Cal. July 1, 2010) (<HOLDING>). Though Prather’s expert Dr. Parisian suggests
holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify holding there was no evidence to support the existence of any alleged fiduciary duty holding that there is no independent duty to test and even if there were it would be completely speculative as to what the consequences would be of any purported failure to fulfill this supposed duty holding that no fiduciary duty existed between the plaintiff and defendant because there was no evidence that the parties agreed that defendant would be acting primarily for the benefit of the plaintiffs recognizing in dicta that where there is a general duty it may be considered as insistent both where the actor is and the subject is  as in the case of the duty of a father to support his children and if the duty hals criminal sanetion it may be enforced in either place