Monsanto Ordered to Pay $1.5 Billion in Roundup Case: Unraveling the Legal Implications

Jennifer W on November 18, 2023

Monsanto Ordered to Pay $1.5 Billion Over Roundup: Implications for Corporate Responsibility 

In a landmark decision that reverberates through the corridors of corporate accountability and consumer safety, Bayer AG’s Monsanto unit was ordered by a Missouri jury to pay over $1.5 billion to three former users of its Roundup weedkiller. This case marks a significant chapter in the ongoing litigation surrounding the controversial herbicide, bringing to light critical legal and ethical questions.

  • Unprecedented Jury Verdict: The Missouri jury’s award of $1.5 billion, comprising both actual and punitive damages, stands as one of the largest in recent U.S. legal history. This verdict is significant not only for its size but also for its message to corporations about consumer safety and responsibility.
  • Roundup and Cancer Claims: Central to this case is the allegation that prolonged exposure to Roundup, particularly its active ingredient glyphosate, is linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Plaintiffs James Draeger, Valorie Gunther, and Dan Anderson attributed their cancers to years of Roundup usage, a claim that resonates with many others around the country.
  • Monsanto’s Legal Battles: This verdict adds to Monsanto’s mounting legal woes, where it has seen a mix of victories and losses in courts. The company, now under the Bayer umbrella, faces an uphill battle in restoring public trust and navigating the complex legal landscape surrounding Roundup.
  • Regulatory Oversight and Corporate Responsibility: Bayer’s stance, underscored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s finding of glyphosate’s safety, contrasts starkly with jury decisions. This dichotomy raises pertinent questions about regulatory oversight and the extent of corporate responsibility in ensuring product safety.
  • Precedent and Future Implications: The case sets a significant legal precedent, not just for Monsanto but for similar lawsuits in the pipeline. The punitive damages, although likely to be reduced on appeal, underscore the jury’s stance on penalizing perceived corporate negligence.

Setting Legal Precedent: The Future of Corporate Accountability 

This verdict is more than a financial setback for Bayer; it’s a wake-up call in the industry about the importance of transparent and responsible business practices. As legal scholars and professionals, we are reminded of the intricate interplay between corporate actions, regulatory oversight, and consumer safety. 

While Bayer is expected to challenge the verdict, citing regulatory decisions and scientific studies, the legal journey of Roundup is far from over. Upcoming trials in other states will further shape the legal landscape surrounding glyphosate and its health implications. 

For consumers and legal professionals alike, this case serves as a crucial example of the power of the legal system in addressing corporate responsibility and protecting public health. As we continue to monitor these developments, one thing is clear: the Monsanto Roundup litigation is a pivotal chapter in the ongoing narrative of corporate accountability and consumer safety. 

Landmark Legal Victory: Bayer Monsanto’s $175M Roundup Verdict

Michael S on October 27, 2023

Bayer Monsanto’s Landmark Defeat in Roundup Cancer Case

The legal landscape, characterized by a complex web of laws, regulations, and judicial decisions, can often appear daunting to those outside the profession. Within the realm of lawsuits and mass torts, significant verdicts not only set precedents and sway public opinion but also serve as a testament to the pursuit of justice. A prime example is the recent ruling against Bayer’s Monsanto.

Key Points: 

  • A jury recently mandated that Bayer Monsanto pay $175 million to a Pennsylvania man who attributed his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma to prolonged exposure to the company’s Roundup weedkiller. 
  • The plaintiff was awarded $25 million in compensatory damages, coupled with an additional $150 million in punitive damages, asserting that two decades of Roundup application in his garden was a causative factor for his cancer. 
  • Prior to this case, Bayer had celebrated a succession of nine consecutive victories in Roundup-related cases. However, a shift in the tide was observed earlier this month when a St. Louis state court jury awarded $1.25 million in damages to another individual attributing his cancer to the weedkiller. 
  • While compensatory damages are intended to provide restitution to the victim, punitive damages act as a deterrent and serve to reprimand the defendant, in this instance, Bayer’s Monsanto. The substantial punitive damages in this case are indicative of the jury’s stance on the company’s liability. 
  • As the legal battles surrounding Roundup persist, each verdict contributes to a broader narrative that shapes future lawsuits, corporate accountability, and informs potential claimants of their rights. 

The recent courtroom setback faced by Bayer in the Roundup case underscores the intricate relationship that exists between corporations and their products. For claimants, such verdicts symbolize hope and affirm that the legal system is a viable avenue for their grievances to be acknowledged and addressed. Conversely, for corporations, they act as stark reminders of their duties and the potential ramifications of their actions. 

In our capacity as legal professionals, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that claimants – the individuals who are at the forefront of these legal confrontations – are adequately informed, empowered, and supported throughout the judicial process. It is vital to recognize that each case number represents a unique human story, encapsulating elements of suffering, hope, and a quest for justice. 

In a world that can often seem dominated by corporate entities and prevailing power structures, verdicts such as the recent one against Bayer Monsanto highlight the potential power that individuals, when supported by a just legal system, can wield. For every claimant, it is a resounding affirmation that their voices are integral, their pain is recognized, and that justice, albeit sometimes elusive, is within reach. 

Update on Tylenol Litigation: Initiation of Daubert Motions

Daniela P on September 25, 2023

Insightful Update on the Tylenol Litigation’s Daubert Hearing Proceedings  

The judicial examination concerning the admissibility of general causation expert testimony in the Tylenol litigation has formally begun. On September 19, 2023, Johnson & Johnson, along with co-defendants representing retail entities, submitted a trilogy of motions intent on precluding the testimonies of the plaintiff’s general causation experts. The defense has raised questions about the scientific reliability of claims that acetaminophen consumption during pregnancy: (1) increases the risk of autism spectrum disorders, (2) elevates the risk of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and (3) is backed by biological plausibility. Conversely, the plaintiff’s legal team has presented a series of motions aiming to exclude all expert testimonies put forth by the defense regarding general causation.  

At this nascent stage of proceedings, it is challenging to predict the rulings on these motions. Opposition briefs and corresponding evidentiary materials will be filed by both parties on October 10, 2023. Subsequently, each will have an opportunity for rebuttal with reply briefs due on October 20th. A clearer understanding of the possible judicial directions will likely emerge only after the comprehensive briefing of each motion. 

Further insights into the methodology of the presiding Judge Cote may be ascertained from a public telephonic status conference scheduled for early October. During this session, Judge Cote will delineate the expectations and specifics of the Daubert hearings set to commence on December 4th. This discussion may involve directives on witness examination procedures, the sequencing of testimonies, and potential limitations on the duration of oral arguments. Additionally, substantive comments from Judge Cote on the current briefs may signal her areas of interest. 

It is also within the realm of possibility that Judge Cote will either request or mandate a set of questions for the counsel to address during the hearings in December, drawing parallels to the approach taken by Judge Rosenberg in the Zantac MDL Daubert proceedings of September 2022. Such an inquiry would likely underscore the issues Judge Cote deems pivotal in formulating her factual and legal conclusions. 

To date, there is no record of any Daubert ruling from Judge Cote in similar product liability or mass tort cases, nor has either party cited such precedent in their filings. It is anticipated that Judge Cote will render a considered verdict on the motions, with a determination expected by mid to late January 2024. 

Should the motions by the defendants be overruled, the litigation is expected to proceed to a subsequent phase, entailing: (1) the selection of bellwether plaintiffs and related discovery, (2) further Daubert motions and hearings focused on specific causation experts, and (3) the setting of bellwether trials, anticipated to be led by noted trial attorneys Mark Lanier and Mikal Watts, contingent upon the plaintiff’s causation experts prevailing against exclusion. 

We will continue to provide updates as further developments arise. 

  

Judicial Update 10.6.23: Judge Cote’s Status Conference on Daubert Hearing Procedures 

In a concise telephonic status conference lasting merely 11 minutes, Judge Cote conferred with counsel regarding the logistics for the forthcoming Daubert hearings scheduled for the week of December 4th. Judge Cote immediately remarked on the uncommon nature of live expert testimonies during such hearings, indicating her preference for engaging with these testimonies only if they clarify issues arising from their written reports, depositions, or referenced scientific studies, thereby assisting her understanding. 

Judge Cote assured that should she deem it necessary to solicit further explanations from specific experts during the proceedings, she will inform the parties accordingly. She emphasized efficiency in testimony, expressing her intention to conduct a thorough review of not only the briefs and reports but also the foundational studies referenced therein. 

Although Judge Cote refrained from imposing oral argument constraints during the call, she signaled her willingness to hear counsel’s arguments and indicated that more concrete plans for the hearing would be forthcoming. 

Upon querying the parties for their input on her preliminary views, the defendants’ counsel drew a parallel to a precedent where Judge Wolfson found live testimony beneficial after initial hesitation. Judge Cote responded by underscoring her current focus on the written briefs, indicating a readiness to request further expert testimony if necessary after the conclusion of the briefing process. 

With the defense’s proposal for comprehensive witness testimony and the plaintiff’s call for a more streamlined approach, Judge Cote’s stance could be interpreted as leaning towards the plaintiffs. However, a more accurate assessment of her position will likely be available after further communication post-October 20th. Insights may also be enhanced should Judge Cote decide to present the parties with specific questions or topics to be addressed during the December hearings. 

 

Legal Brief 10.20.23: Tylenol Case Progress 

Following the submission of the final briefs on October 20th concerning the parties 

’ Daubert motions, anticipation builds for further instructions from Judge Cote. Ahead of the December 4th Daubert hearing, there are several key considerations: the potential for Judge Cote to call upon specific expert witnesses, the allotment of time for each side’s oral arguments, the sequence of these arguments, and the possibility of receiving direct questions from the Judge. These forthcoming directives will offer significant insight into Judge Cote’s judicial approach and the trajectory of the hearings. 

Tylenol Litigation Update: FDA’s Stance Reveals Complex Implications

Daniela P on September 11, 2023

FDA’s Response in Tylenol Autism/ADHD Litigation: An Overview 

In the unfolding Tylenol litigation, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has provided a nuanced response to inquiries concerning the potential risks associated with acetaminophen use during pregnancy. In late April 2023, the presiding Judge Cote solicited the agency’s perspective on whether warnings about the risk of autism and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) should be explicitly stated on acetaminophen labels for pregnant women. Although the FDA’s feedback was initially due by the end of July, the deadline was extended at the request of the U.S. Government to September 15th.

Ahead of schedule, on September 8th, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of the FDA, submitted a letter and an accompanying report. This submission occurred 11 days before the deadline for the parties to present their initial Daubert briefs, which are intended to challenge and aim to exclude their opponents’ general causation experts. 

The disclosure from the Department of Justice (DOJ) indicated that the FDA currently views the post-2015 scientific studies it has reviewed as inconclusive regarding causality. This perspective is seen as unfavorable by those who advocate for a definitive link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and developmental disorders. 

However, there is an aspect of the FDA’s position that may be perceived positively by the plaintiffs. According to the DOJ letter, the FDA has chosen not to assert a position within the ongoing litigation, aiming not to impede Judge Cote’s evaluative process of expert testimony during the Daubert hearings. Notably, the FDA has refrained from commenting on potential alterations to the current warning labels, thus abstaining from influencing the judicial procedures directly. 

This development prompted Johnson & Johnson and Walmart to consider additional legal maneuvers, anticipating that Judge Cote might be persuaded to reassess her previous rulings that dismissed their preemption claims. In response to a subsequent request from Johnson & Johnson for a status conference to deliberate on the implications of the FDA’s stance, Judge Cote promptly declined, reasserting her focus on the upcoming September 19 Daubert motions. 

The future implications of the FDA’s position remain to be fully understood. Defendants are expected to leverage the FDA’s findings in the Daubert motions and may seek to inform juries of the agency’s stance in future bellwether trials. Conversely, the plaintiffs’ representatives are likely to contend that unless FDA officials are subject to deposition and cross-examination, the disclosure of the FDA’s views could unfairly prejudice the jury against the plaintiffs. 

Following the FDA’s response, the plaintiffs’ leadership has made public a previously submitted letter to the FDA, arguing that recent scientific studies do indeed establish a causal link. This public disclosure suggests an increased probability that subsequent filings from both parties, including the September 19 Daubert motions and the October 10 opposition briefs, may also enter the public domain rather than being filed confidentially. 

While the FDA’s current position on the recent studies does not endorse causality, the agency’s non-interventionist approach to the warning label debate and the Daubert process presents a complex tableau. The litigation community now eagerly awaits the impending exchange of Daubert motions, expert reports, and briefs due for submission on September 19, 2023. 

Recent Advances in PFAS/AFFF Litigation and 3M Earplug Settlements

Michael S on August 30, 2023

Advancements in PFAS/AFFF and 3M Earplug Legal Proceedings

Significant legal developments have transpired in connection with the ongoing PFAS/AFFF litigation and related personal injury claims, indicating progress towards resolving several complex legal disputes. 

Key Points: 

  • Preliminary Settlement Approvals: Courts have granted preliminary approval for two significant settlements involving PFAS/AFFF personal injury claims with major corporations including 3M, Dupont/Chemours/Corteva, and Public Water Systems. 
  • Settlement Scheduling: Judge Gergel has scheduled final approval hearings for the Dupont-related settlement on December 14, 2023, and for the 3M settlement on February 2, 2024, moving the litigation process forward. 
  • 3M Earplug Compensation Agreement: 3M has agreed to a substantial settlement, ranging between $5.5 to $6 billion, to compensate victims who suffered hearing loss or tinnitus due to the company’s defective earplugs, with a payment schedule spanning over five years. 
  • Impact on 3M’s Financial Outlook: The settlements are expected to provide a clearer path for 3M in resolving its extensive PFAS/AFFF personal injury claims, potentially stabilizing the company’s stock price and credit ratings. 
  • Bellwether Trial Program Amendments: Adjustments have been made to the schedule and process for selecting Initial Personal Injury Bellwether Discovery Pool Plaintiffs, with detailed steps outlined for the selection and discovery process leading up to the trials, ensuring a structured approach to these complex cases. 

On August 22, the presiding judge of the Multi-District Litigation (MDL), Judge Gergel, overcame multiple objections to provisionally sanction the settlement proposal between Dupont/Chemours/Corteva and Public Water Systems (PWS). He has scheduled a hearing on December 14, 2023, to consider final approval of this accord. 

In a subsequent move on August 29, Judge Gergel granted preliminary approval to a settlement between 3M and PWS after revisions that addressed concerns raised by state attorney generals. A final judgment on this settlement is anticipated at a hearing slated for February 2, 2024. 

These orders align with Judge Gergel’s prior comments emphasizing the benefits of settlement agreements in judicial efficiency and the protracted timelines for dissenting parties to receive court consideration. 

Additionally, a noteworthy settlement was publicized on August 29, 2023, when 3M agreed to a compensation package valued between $5.5 to $6 billion over a five-year period for plaintiffs affected by the company’s defective earplugs. This settlement follows extensive litigation, including 16 bellwether trials and the dismissal of an Aearo bankruptcy filing deemed to be improperly purposed. Judge Rodgers of the MDL has described the settlement as equitable and has facilitated the publication of details and the administrative roadmap on a dedicated website [https://www.flnd.uscourts.gov/3m-products-liability-litigation-mdl-no-2885], urging involved law firms and claimants to adhere to strict claim submission deadlines. 

This settlement is anticipated to positively affect 3M’s financial outlook by potentially resolving one of its major litigation exposures, thereby providing a clearer trajectory for addressing the multitude of PFAS/AFFF personal injury claims. 

Updates on the 3M PWS Settlement Agreement and further developments regarding 3M, Dupont/Chemours/Corteva, and PFAS/AFFF litigation will continue to be provided. 

LEGAL UPDATE 10.02.23: Revision of Initial Personal Injury Bellwether Trial Schedule 

Judge Gergel has released Case Management Order 26A, which amends the schedule for the selection of Initial Personal Injury Bellwether Discovery Pool Plaintiffs, as initially outlined in CMO 26. The exchange and agreement on the selection of proposed Plaintiffs by the parties are now due by November 14. If consensus is not achieved by November 17, alternative selections will be proposed. 

By December 1, the parties are required to submit a definitive list of selected or proposed cases, complete with a synopsis of injuries and exposure locations. Disputes over plaintiff representation must also be articulated. From these submissions, Judge Gergel will appoint the 28 Initial Personal Injury Bellwether Discovery Pool Plaintiffs. 

The parties are also instructed to confer on the “Personal Injury Tier 1 Discovery” process, aiming to present a unified Discovery Order to the Court by December 1, 2023. This follows the foundational CMO 26, which set forth the parameters for selecting Bellwether Trial Pool Plaintiffs, including specific disease categories and exposure criteria linked to designated military bases. 

Counsel for the Plaintiffs has been tasked with selecting 28 Bellwether Discovery Pool Plaintiffs from specified disease categories, adhering to stringent exposure and claim criteria. 

The last segment of CMO 26 addresses the need for parties to establish a procedure for managing personal injury claims outside the CMO’s scope, a matter that remains pending further legal documentation and clarification.