Another 6 Attorneys on Roundup Plaintiffs' Team Fighting Possible Sanctions
A federal judge who ordered lead counsel Aimee Wagstaff to pay $500 for "obvious violations" of his pretrial orders wants to know whether he should sanction other members of the plaintiffs' trial team.
April 17, 2019 at 07:08 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Six attorneys who worked on the plaintiffs' opening statement in the first federal trial over the herbicide Roundup plan to file responses in court Wednesday as to why a federal judge who sanctioned lead trial counsel Aimee Wagstaff should not impose the same penalties on them.
On Feb. 26, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, overseeing the trial in San Francisco, ordered Wagstaff, of Andrus Wagstaff, to pay $500 as a sanction for “obvious violations” of his pretrial orders in her opening statement. The trial, which alleged that Monsanto's Roundup caused a man to get non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, ended in an $80 million verdict for Wagstaff's client March 27. As part of the sanctions, however, Chhabria ordered Wagstaff to provide a list of all attorneys who worked with her on the opening statement for possible sanctions, as well.
Wagstaff provided six names this month: Kathryn Forgie and David Wool, both at her Lakewood, Colorado-based law firm; Baum Hedlund senior managing partner Michael Baum and partner R. Brent Wisner; Mark Burton, of counsel at San Francisco's Audet & Partners; and Jennifer A. Moore, of the Moore Law Group in Louisville, Kentucky, who was Wagstaff's co-counsel at trial.
Wagstaff insisted in an April 10 brief that she had “ultimate decision making responsibility” as to trial strategy and had not presented the opening statement “in bad faith.” If there were any violations, she wrote, they were “not premeditated nor intentional.” She insisted that Chhabria should not sanction any member of her trial team over the PowerPoint slides she showed jurors during her opening because the “decision to include them was mine.”
Wagstaff also requested that the other attorneys be allowed to file their responses under seal, given that the opening statement contained “sensitive attorney work product” and because at least five other trials against Monsanto, now owned by Bayer AG, are planned this year.
“Limiting Monsanto's access to any other attorney response is necessary and appropriate under the circumstances because the attorneys identified above may not be able to adequately explain their role and/or provide the court documentation without exposing attorney trial work product, thus risking severe prejudice to the thousands of plaintiffs with Roundup cases pending before this court and others.”
On Tuesday, Chhabria granted that request. Last week, Chhabria temporarily vacated the second federal Roundup trial, set for May 20, after finding that “the resources of the parties and the court are better spent on organizing the remaining cases in the MDL.”
Wagstaff did not respond to a request for comment, nor did four of the six other lawyers facing possible sanctions. Forgie, who is in Oakland, California, wrote in an email, “It would not be appropriate for me to make a comment at this time.” Burton declined to comment.
In a previously emailed statement, Baum called the sanctions “unfortunate.”
“The lines the court claims Ms. Wagstaff crossed were not clear to us, or even the defendants, a fact underscored by the fact that Monsanto's lawyers did not object to most of the issues during the opening,” he wrote at the time of the sanctions order.
At a sanctions hearing, Moore defended Wagstaff's opening, noting the “unique nature of this trial.” Both she and Baum pointed to Chhabria's decision to bifurcate the trial, which the plaintiff's attorneys had opposed. That decision, they insisted, led to confusion over what was admissible during each of the trial's two phases.
In his sanctions order, Chhabria pointed to six times that Wagstaff violated his evidentiary rulings during her opening.
“Taken together, the first five violations were intentional and committed in bad faith,” Chhabria wrote. “These were not slips of the tongue—they were included in the slides Wagstaff and her team prepared and used for her opening statement, and they were on issues that Wagstaff and her team have made clear throughout the pretrial proceedings they believe are important for the jury to hear at the same time it hears the evidence on causation.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the Week: After a 74-Day Trial, Shook Fends Off Claims From Artist’s Heirs Against UMB Bank
‘It's Your Funeral’: Avoiding Doing Damage to Your Client’s Case With Uncivil Behavior
Tips From—and About—the New Judges on the Northern District of California Bench
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250