Attorney Misconduct Led to $2B Roundup Verdict, Bayer Says in Appeal
In a brief before California's First District Court of Appeal on Friday, Bayer insisted that "egregious and pervasive misconduct" by plaintiffs counsel infected the trial.
February 10, 2020 at 01:05 PM
5 minute read
Bayer has petitioned a California appeals court to reverse a jury's $2 billion verdict over Roundup, insisting that "egregious and pervasive misconduct" by plaintiffs counsel infected the trial.
The appeal, which comes in the third verdict against Bayer's Monsanto alleging its Roundup herbicide caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma, comes as the next trial, originally scheduled in federal court for later this month, got pushed back to March 23 amid talks to settle some or all of the 42,700 lawsuits across the nation.
In a brief filed late Friday before California's First District Court of Appeal, Bayer attorney Dean Bochner said plaintiffs attorneys violated court orders, prompting Monsanto to move for a mistrial several times. In particular, the brief says, they improperly called the case a "historic fight against Monsanto," insisted that the Roundup ingredient glyphosate was pervasive, and referenced the previous trials that ended in verdicts of $289 million and $80 million.
"Throughout the trial, plaintiffs' counsel engaged in egregious and pervasive misconduct," wrote Bochner, a partner at Horvitz & Levy in Burbank.
Then, while questioning one of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs attorney put on gloves and sprayed water out of a Roundup bottle.
"The entire demonstration was simply a tactic to scare the jury," Bochner wrote.
Lead plaintiffs attorney R. Brent Wisner, a partner at Los Angeles-based Baum Hedlund, said the arguments were similar to those Bayer made in appealing the $289 million Roundup verdict, also before the First District Court of Appeal. Bayer also made similar allegations in motions it filed soon after the $2 billion verdict.
"Instead of acknowledging that a smart group of jurors thoughtfully and carefully considered the evidence, finding Monsanto both liable and malicious, Monsanto attempts to make this case about the attorneys," Wisner wrote in an emailed statement. "Let me be clear, there was no attorney misconduct. We won because the evidence and science showed not only that Roundup causes cancer, but that Monsanto (now Bayer) hid that risk from consumers for 40 years. The $2 billion in punitive damages was a testament to the gravity of Monsanto's corporate malfeasance. We are confident that the court of appeals will see the same evidence and science and affirm this historic verdict."
The 2019 verdict, by a jury in Alameda County Superior Court, included $55 million in compensatory damages and $2 billion in punitive damages for plaintiffs Alva and Alberta Pilliod. Judge Winifred Smith of the Alameda County Superior Court lowered the jury's award to $86.7 million, including $70 million in punitive damages. She found there was "clear and convincing evidence" that Monsanto's actions were "reprehensible" and showed a "conscious disregard for health."
Among the misconduct claims cited in the brief are plaintiffs counsel's suggestion that a verdict against Bayer could cause the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to change its ruling on glyphosate and statements that the EPA and other regulatory bodies had "blood on their hands" for refusing to impose cancer warnings on products that used the chemical. Also, plaintiffs counsel allegedly violated court orders to exclude from trial both evidence that glyphosate was in other sources unrelated to the case and references to the prior Roundup verdicts—both of which prompted Bayer's counsel to move unsuccessfully for a mistrial.
"Here, the misconduct was serious, deliberate, and pervasive," Bochner wrote.
In addition to attorney misconduct, Bayer challenged the punitive damages as unconstitutional and duplicative. As in the federal jury's $80 million award now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Bayer continued to argue that federal law preempted product liability claims. Also, the EPA, which reaffirmed last month that Roundup ingredient glyphosate was not carcinogenic, did not require a warning label. The Justice Department, along with several medical groups that sided with Bayer in its appeal of the $289 million verdict, filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit appeal supporting the federal preemption argument.
"The undisputed facts show that Monsanto kept abreast of the most current scientific information and the uniform conclusions of foreign and domestic regulatory agencies that there is no causal link between exposure to Roundup and cancer," Bochner wrote. "For decades, EPA has exhaustively reviewed the science, repeatedly determined that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and consistently approved Roundup for sale with a label that does not warn of cancer."
Also, Bochner wrote, the Pilliods had not provided sufficient evidence to prove Roundup caused them both to get non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Bayer cited the judge's decision to have a jury decide the claims of both plaintiffs, who had previous other cancers in separate health histories, which gave plaintiffs an "overwhelming advantage" in their claims.
The appeal brief also cited "irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence" about fraud committed at a testing laboratory called IBT. The judge allowed the evidence into the trial, allowing plaintiffs' attorneys to suggest that Monsanto was involved in fraud against the EPA.
"The jury's verdicts and the damages awarded cannot be reconciled with either the law or sound science, and the court should reverse and enter judgment in favor of Monsanto, or in the alternative, order a new trial on all claims," Monsanto said in a statement.
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner joined Horvitz & Levy in Monsanto's brief.
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 AllA Judge Asks: Is It Time to End Ken Feinberg's Roundup Settlement Program?
7 minute readWhy the Wide Range of Roundup Verdicts? It Might Depend on What Juries Hear About the EPA
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 2Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 3Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
- 4'It Refreshes Me': King & Spalding Privacy Leader Doubles as Equestrian Champ
- 5Class Action Filed Against Houston Health Savings Account Firm for Allegedly Confiscating Client Funds
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