On August 14, 2020 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Stephens, Donnetta,
and
Crown Ace Hardware,
Does 1 Through 100 Inclusive,
Monsato Company,
Wilbur-Ellis Company, Llc,
Wilbur-Ellis Nutrition, Llc,
for Product Liability Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
OR+G|NAL
(CA SBN 119854)
Paul R. Kiesel F l L ’=
D
SUPERIOR CCL’RT 3F
Melanie Meneses Palmer (CA SBN 286752) CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
KIESEL LAW LLP SAN BERN ARDINO DISTRICT
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, California 9021 1-2910 JUL .i. 2 2021
Tel: 3 10-854-4444
Fax: 310-854—0812
av Armrggw
kiesel®kiesel.law
palmer@kiesel.law 0 DEPUTY
Fletcher V. Trammell, Esq.
Alexander G. Dwyer
Melissa Binstock Ephron, Esq. Andrew F. Kirkendall
FAX TRAMMELL, PC Erin M. Wood
\OOONON 3262 Westheimer Rd., Ste. 423 KIRKENDALL DWYER LLP
Houston, TX 77098 4343 Sigma Rd, Suite 200
Tel: (800) 405-1740
BY Dallas, TX 75244
Fax: (800) 532-0992
Tel: 214-271-4027
fletch@trammellpc.com Fax: 214-253-0629
10 melissaQDtrammellpcxom ad@kirkendalldwyer.c0m
ak@kirkendalldwyer.com
11 Attorneysfor Plaintiff
ewood@kirkendalldwyer.com
DONNETTA STEPHENS
12
LLP
California
Law 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
at
LAW
14
Hills,
Attorneys
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
15
KIESEL
Beverly DONNETTA STEPHENS, Case No. CIVSBZIO4801
16
Plaintiff, Assignedfor All Purposes to the Hon. Gilbert
17 G. Ochoa, Dept. S24
v.
18 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE
19 NO. 15 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO
Defendant. OR TESTIMONY FROM KIRK
20 AZEVEDO; DECLARATION OF
FLETCHER V. TRAMMELL
21
Department: $24
22 Judge: Hon. Gilbert G. Ochoa
23 Hearing Date: July 15, 2021
24
Hearing Time: 9:00 AM
Complaint Filed: August 14, 2020
25
Trial Date: July 19,
2021
26
27
28
005944344
Case No. CIVSB2104801
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 15 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO
OR TESTIMONY FROM KIRK AZEVEDO
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”) seeks to exclude any and all evidence,
argument, reference to, or testimony from Kirk Azevedo ("Mn Azevedo"). Monsanto's two
arguments are: (1) Mr. Azevedo's testimony lacks relevance, and (2) Mr. Azevedo’s deposition
testimony is inadmissible hearsay.
Mr. Azevedo’s deposition testimony is exactly the type 0f evidence envisioned in Section
\OOOVON
1291 0f the California Evidence Code. Second, Mr. Azevedo's testimony is highly relevant t0
Plaintiff’ s damages claims. Monsanto merely seeks to exclude the testimony of its former employee
10 simply because he crossed their line and broke a code ofsilence. This Court should deny Monsanto's
11 attempt t0 suppress relevant evidence and deny Monsanto's motion.
12 ARGUMENT
LLP
Mr. Azevedo’s Deposition Testimony
California
Law 13 I. is Highly Relevant For Plaintiff’s Punitive
at
LAW
Hills,
14 Damages Claim.
Attorneys
15 Only evidence that is relevant to the issues before the Court is admissible. California Evidence
KIESEL
Beverly
16 Code Section § 350. However, evidence need not bear directly on any issue, and it is still "'admissible
17 if it tends to prove the issue, 0r constitutes a link in the chain of proof."' Dike v. Golden State C0., 269
18 P.2d 619, 622 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 1954) (quoting Firlotte v. Jessee, 172 P.2d 710, 711 (Cal. App. 3d
19 Dist. 1946)). Punitive damages are proper when "it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that
20 the defendant has been guilty 0f oppression, fraud, or malice...." Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(3). Malice as
21 defined by the statute means, in part: "despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with
22 a willful and conscious disregard 0f the rights or safety 0f others." Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1).
23 At trial Plaintiffwill seek t0 introduce evidence that Monsanto knew that its glyphosate-based
24 herbicide causes cancer, but willfully and consciously refused t0 wam the public. The Honorable
25 Vince Chhabria, presiding over the federal Roundup® MDL, previously found that “there is strong
26 evidence from which a jury could conclude that Monsanto does not particularly care whether its
27 product is in fact giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and
28 undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue.” Declaration of
005944344 2 Case No. CIVSBZIO4801
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 15 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO
OR TESTIMONY FROM KIRK AZEVEDO
Document Filed Date
July 12, 2021
Case Filing Date
August 14, 2020
Category
Product Liability Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
OR+G|NAL (CA SBN 119854) Paul R. Kiesel F l L ’= D SUPERIOR CCL’RT 3F Melanie Meneses Palmer (CA SBN 286752) CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO KIESEL LAW LLP SAN BERN ARDINO DISTRICT 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, California 9021 1-2910 JUL .i. 2 2021 Tel: 3 10-854-4444 Fax: 310-854—0812 av Armrggw kiesel®kiesel.law palmer@kiesel.law 0 DEPUTY Fletcher V. Trammell, Esq. Alexander G. Dwyer Melissa Binstock Ephron, Esq. Andrew F. Kirkendall FAX TRAMMELL, PC Erin M. Wood \OOONON 3262 Westheimer Rd., Ste. 423 KIRKENDALL DWYER LLP Houston, TX 77098 4343 Sigma Rd, Suite 200 Tel: (800) 405-1740 BY Dallas, TX 75244 Fax: (800) 532-0992 Tel: 214-271-4027 fletch@trammellpc.com Fax: 214-253-0629 10 melissaQDtrammellpcxom ad@kirkendalldwyer.c0m ak@kirkendalldwyer.com 11 Attorneysfor Plaintiff ewood@kirkendalldwyer.com DONNETTA STEPHENS 12 LLP California Law 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA at LAW 14 Hills, Attorneys COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 15 KIESEL Beverly DONNETTA STEPHENS, Case No. CIVSBZIO4801 16 Plaintiff, Assignedfor All Purposes to the Hon. Gilbert 17 G. Ochoa, Dept. S24 v. 18 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE 19 NO. 15 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO Defendant. OR TESTIMONY FROM KIRK 20 AZEVEDO; DECLARATION OF FLETCHER V. TRAMMELL 21 Department: $24 22 Judge: Hon. Gilbert G. Ochoa 23 Hearing Date: July 15, 2021 24 Hearing Time: 9:00 AM Complaint Filed: August 14, 2020 25 Trial Date: July 19, 2021 26 27 28 005944344 Case No. CIVSB2104801 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 15 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO OR TESTIMONY FROM KIRK AZEVEDO MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION Defendant Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”) seeks to exclude any and all evidence, argument, reference to, or testimony from Kirk Azevedo ("Mn Azevedo"). Monsanto's two arguments are: (1) Mr. Azevedo's testimony lacks relevance, and (2) Mr. Azevedo’s deposition testimony is inadmissible hearsay. Mr. Azevedo’s deposition testimony is exactly the type 0f evidence envisioned in Section \OOOVON 1291 0f the California Evidence Code. Second, Mr. Azevedo's testimony is highly relevant t0 Plaintiff’ s damages claims. Monsanto merely seeks to exclude the testimony of its former employee 10 simply because he crossed their line and broke a code ofsilence. This Court should deny Monsanto's 11 attempt t0 suppress relevant evidence and deny Monsanto's motion. 12 ARGUMENT LLP Mr. Azevedo’s Deposition Testimony California Law 13 I. is Highly Relevant For Plaintiff’s Punitive at LAW Hills, 14 Damages Claim. Attorneys 15 Only evidence that is relevant to the issues before the Court is admissible. California Evidence KIESEL Beverly 16 Code Section § 350. However, evidence need not bear directly on any issue, and it is still "'admissible 17 if it tends to prove the issue, 0r constitutes a link in the chain of proof."' Dike v. Golden State C0., 269 18 P.2d 619, 622 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 1954) (quoting Firlotte v. Jessee, 172 P.2d 710, 711 (Cal. App. 3d 19 Dist. 1946)). Punitive damages are proper when "it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that 20 the defendant has been guilty 0f oppression, fraud, or malice...." Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(3). Malice as 21 defined by the statute means, in part: "despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with 22 a willful and conscious disregard 0f the rights or safety 0f others." Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1). 23 At trial Plaintiffwill seek t0 introduce evidence that Monsanto knew that its glyphosate-based 24 herbicide causes cancer, but willfully and consciously refused t0 wam the public. The Honorable 25 Vince Chhabria, presiding over the federal Roundup® MDL, previously found that “there is strong 26 evidence from which a jury could conclude that Monsanto does not particularly care whether its 27 product is in fact giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and 28 undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue.” Declaration of 005944344 2 Case No. CIVSBZIO4801 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 15 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO OR TESTIMONY FROM KIRK AZEVEDO