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
ORrGlNAL
p—
QUPEWOR Cf‘UkTéF BLIFCRF'QA
t
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
H
Paul R. Kiesel (CA SBN 119854) SAN BERNARDIMO DISTRICT
KIESEL LAW LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard JUL i 2 2021
Beverly Hills, California 9021 1-2910
Tel: 310-854-4444
Fax: 310-854-0812
By / M%m
kiesel@kiesel.law
OOOONONUIAUJN
Fletcher V. Trammell, Esq. Alexander G. Dwyer
Melissa Binstock Ephron, Esq. Andrew F. Kirkendall
TRAMMELL, PC Erin M. Wood
FAX 3262 Westheimer Rd., Ste. 423 KIRKENDALL DWYER LLP
Houston, TX 77098 4343 Sigma Rd. Suite 200
Tel: (800) 405-1740 Dallas, TX 75244
BY
Fax: (800) 532-0992 Tel: 214-271-4027
fletch@trammellpc.com Fax: 214-253-0629
melissa@trammellpc.com ad@kirkendalldwyer.com
ak@kirkendalldwyer.com
ewood@kirkendalldwyer.com
Attorneysfor Plaintiff
DONNETTA STEPHENS ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED BELOW
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
NNNNNNNNN—t—p—HH—flp—tp—u—n
DONNETTA STEPHENS, Case N0. CIVSBZIO4801
Plaintiff Assignedfor All Purposes to the Hon. Gilbert
G. Ochoa, Dept. $24
OONONU‘I-RWNflooooNONm-I>WN~
VS.
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT MONSANTO
MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL., COMPANY’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO.
4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE,
Defendants. ARGUMENT, OR TESTIMONY
REGARDING GLYPHOSATE IN
BREAST MILK, FOOD, OR OTHER
SOURCES
Department: $24
Judge: Hon. Gilbert G. Ochoa
Hearing Date: July 15, 2021
Hearing Time: 9:00 AM
1
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MONSANTO COMPANY AND CROWN
ACE HARDWARE’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4
Complaint Filed: August 14, 2020
Trial Date: July 19, 2021
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
OOOONONUl-PUJNb—I
INTRODUCTION
The ubiquitous nature 0f glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is an essential
component of Plaintiff Donnetta Stephens’ (“Plaintiff”) liability narrative and goes t0 a fundamental
and central issue in this case — Plaintiff s exposure to glyphosate. Despite this, Defendants Monsanto
Company and Crown Ace Hardware (“Defendants”) allege that evidence and testimony about the
ubiquitous nature of glyphosate — including glyphosate’s presence in our food supply — should be
excluded 0n account 0f such evidence being irrelevant and prejudicial. This is simply not correct.
In fact, should this evidence be excluded, Plaintiff will be the one t0 suffer prejudice, as her
full exposure narrative will be unable to be told.‘ Further, excluding this evidence will serve t0
promote a fiction that Plaintiff was only exposed t0 glyphosate while spraying Roundup; this simply
NNNNNNNNN—Ht—u—flp—n—p—I—u—I
is not true. In reality, Plaintiff was exposed to glyphosate every time she sat down for a meal and
that exposure intensified each day she sprayed Roundup. As such, the Court should deny
OONQUl-DWNflooooflQUI-bWNH
Defendants’ attempts to suppress evidence showing the ubiquitous nature 0f glyphosate.
RELEVANT FACTS
Plaintiffclearly alleges in her complaint that glyphosate is “ubiquitous in the environment .
. . . [I]t has been found in food, in the urine of agricultural workers, and even in the urine 0f urban
dwellers who are not in direct contact with glyphosate.” Complaint at 1] 3. Plaintiff’s complaint
alleges specifically that “exposure pathways are identified as air (especially during spraying), water,
I
T0 be clear, Plaintiff does not intend to make any specific references to glyphosate being present in breast milk.
2
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MONSANTO COMPANY AND CROWN
ACE HARDWARE’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4
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
ORrGlNAL p— QUPEWOR Cf‘UkTéF BLIFCRF'QA t COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO H Paul R. Kiesel (CA SBN 119854) SAN BERNARDIMO DISTRICT KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard JUL i 2 2021 Beverly Hills, California 9021 1-2910 Tel: 310-854-4444 Fax: 310-854-0812 By / M%m kiesel@kiesel.law OOOONONUIAUJN Fletcher V. Trammell, Esq. Alexander G. Dwyer Melissa Binstock Ephron, Esq. Andrew F. Kirkendall TRAMMELL, PC Erin M. Wood FAX 3262 Westheimer Rd., Ste. 423 KIRKENDALL DWYER LLP Houston, TX 77098 4343 Sigma Rd. Suite 200 Tel: (800) 405-1740 Dallas, TX 75244 BY Fax: (800) 532-0992 Tel: 214-271-4027 fletch@trammellpc.com Fax: 214-253-0629 melissa@trammellpc.com ad@kirkendalldwyer.com ak@kirkendalldwyer.com ewood@kirkendalldwyer.com Attorneysfor Plaintiff DONNETTA STEPHENS ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED BELOW SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO NNNNNNNNN—t—p—HH—flp—tp—u—n DONNETTA STEPHENS, Case N0. CIVSBZIO4801 Plaintiff Assignedfor All Purposes to the Hon. Gilbert G. Ochoa, Dept. $24 OONONU‘I-RWNflooooNONm-I>WN~ VS. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MONSANTO MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL., COMPANY’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, Defendants. ARGUMENT, OR TESTIMONY REGARDING GLYPHOSATE IN BREAST MILK, FOOD, OR OTHER SOURCES Department: $24 Judge: Hon. Gilbert G. Ochoa Hearing Date: July 15, 2021 Hearing Time: 9:00 AM 1 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MONSANTO COMPANY AND CROWN ACE HARDWARE’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 Complaint Filed: August 14, 2020 Trial Date: July 19, 2021 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES OOOONONUl-PUJNb—I INTRODUCTION The ubiquitous nature 0f glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is an essential component of Plaintiff Donnetta Stephens’ (“Plaintiff”) liability narrative and goes t0 a fundamental and central issue in this case — Plaintiff s exposure to glyphosate. Despite this, Defendants Monsanto Company and Crown Ace Hardware (“Defendants”) allege that evidence and testimony about the ubiquitous nature of glyphosate — including glyphosate’s presence in our food supply — should be excluded 0n account 0f such evidence being irrelevant and prejudicial. This is simply not correct. In fact, should this evidence be excluded, Plaintiff will be the one t0 suffer prejudice, as her full exposure narrative will be unable to be told.‘ Further, excluding this evidence will serve t0 promote a fiction that Plaintiff was only exposed t0 glyphosate while spraying Roundup; this simply NNNNNNNNN—Ht—u—flp—n—p—I—u—I is not true. In reality, Plaintiff was exposed to glyphosate every time she sat down for a meal and that exposure intensified each day she sprayed Roundup. As such, the Court should deny OONQUl-DWNflooooflQUI-bWNH Defendants’ attempts to suppress evidence showing the ubiquitous nature 0f glyphosate. RELEVANT FACTS Plaintiffclearly alleges in her complaint that glyphosate is “ubiquitous in the environment . . . . [I]t has been found in food, in the urine of agricultural workers, and even in the urine 0f urban dwellers who are not in direct contact with glyphosate.” Complaint at 1] 3. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges specifically that “exposure pathways are identified as air (especially during spraying), water, I T0 be clear, Plaintiff does not intend to make any specific references to glyphosate being present in breast milk. 2 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MONSANTO COMPANY AND CROWN ACE HARDWARE’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4