Monsanto Takes Shot at Reversing $80M Federal Roundup Verdict
Lawyers for Monsanto's parent company, Bayer AG, have asked the federal judge overseeing a batch of lawsuits accusing the company's blockbuster herbicide Roundup of causing cancer to reverse the $80 million dollar damages verdict in the first bellwether trial of the multidistrict litigation or to grant a new trial.
June 03, 2019 at 06:04 PM
4 minute read
Lawyers for Monsanto Co.'s parent company, Bayer AG, have asked the federal judge overseeing a batch of lawsuits accusing the company's blockbuster herbicide Roundup of causing cancer to reverse an $80 million dollar damages verdict in the first case to go to trial in the multidistrict litigation, or to grant the company a new trial.
In court papers filed Friday, Bayer's lawyers at Wilkinson Walsh + Eskovitz; Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer; Hollingsworth; and Covington & Burling claim the jury's finding that Roundup use caused Sonoma County resident Edwin Hardeman's non-Hodgkin lymphoma runs counter to regulatory determinations and scientific evidence showing that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, doesn't pose a cancer threat to humans when used properly. Monsanto's lawyers also argued that U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, who is overseeing the Roundup MDL, got several evidentiary rulings wrong.
In particular, Monsanto's lawyers claim that although plaintiffs were allowed to introduce evidence related to a 2015 finding by a United Nations-related body that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic” in humans, the company wasn't allowed to introduce evidence from other regulatory bodies, which have subsequently found Roundup safe to use as directed.
Monsanto also claims that plaintiffs ran afoul of one of Chhabria's pretrial rulings barring them from asserting that two studies they presented at trial showed a doubling in cancer risk for people who used Roundup more than two days per year or 10 days in their lifetime. Monsanto's motion points out that plaintiff's trial counsel mentioned the doubling in risk in opening and closing statements and elicited testimony from an expert witness about a “more than twofold” increase in risk, despite the court's pretrial ruling.
Hardeman's lead counsel in the case Aimee Wagstaff, of Andrus Wagstaff in Lakewood, Colorado, and Jennifer A. Moore, of the Moore Law Group in Louisville, Kentucky, didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Monsanto is asking the judge to overturn an $80 million verdict that came at the end of a month-long trial—proceedings that featured drama in the early going despite Chhabria's efforts to keep the initial focus on science. Chhabria spilt the trial proceedings into two phases to first focus on whether the scientific evidence showed that Hardeman's use of Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The judge sanctioned lead plaintiff's counsel Wagstaff shortly after the opening of the trial in February, finding that she had violated his pretrial evidentiary orders regarding the first phase.
He ordered Wagstaff to pay $500, finding that she ran afoul of his orders intentionally and in bad faith. Post-trial, Chhabria has also sanctioned Wagstaff's co-counsel Moore finding that she “intentionally joined in the bad faith misconduct” and ordered her to pay $500. On Monday, Chhabria ordered the parties in the Hardmen case to file their slides from Phase 1 closing statements and Phase 2 opening and closing statements with the court.
The Hardeman case was the second of three blockbuster Bay Area verdicts against Monsanto in Roundup cases, but the only one so far in federal court. The first trial in San Francisco Superior Court ended in a $289 million verdict last year, an amount that was later cut by the judge to $78 million. A third trial last month resulted in a jury in Alameda County Superior Court awarding $2 billion in punitive damages to a California couple who both had non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Read more:
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 AllIn Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readMorrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
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