Preview
OR+G|NAL
F I s: >
SUPERIOR CCURT OF CALIFURMA
COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO
(CA SBN 119854)
Paul R. Kiesel SAN HERNARDINO nISTMCT,
(CA SBN 286752)
Melanie Meneses Palmer
KIESEL LAW LLP JUL i. 2 202?
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, California 9021 1-2910 .
BY ih'lhg’ggu J
Tel: 310-854-4444
D
_
Fax: 310-854-0812 mepuw
kieselgaikieselJaW
palmarflkiesellaw
Fletcher V. Trammell, Esq. Alexander G. Dwyer
FAX
Melissa Binstock Ephron, Esq. Andrew F. Kirkendall
TRAMMELL, PC Erin M. Wood
3262 Westheimer Rd., Ste. 423 KIRKENDALL DWYER LLP
Houston, TX 77098 4343 Sigma Rd, Suite 200
BY Tel: (800) 405-1740 Dallas, TX 75244
Fax: (800) 532-0992 Tel: 214-271-4027
10 fletchfcbtrammellpccom Fax: 214-253-0629
melissa@tra1nmellpc.c0m ad@kirkendalldwyer.com
11 ak@kirkendalldwyer.com
Attorneysfor Plaintiff ewood@kirkendalldwyer.com
12 DONNETTA STEPHENS
LLP
California
Law 13
at SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LAW
14
Hills,
Attorneys
15 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
KIESEL
Beverly
16 DONNETTA STEPHENS, Case No. CIVSB2104801
17 Plaintiff, Assignedfor All Purposes t0 the Hon. Gilbert
G. Ochoa, Dept. $24
18 V.
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
19 MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE
NO. 12 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE,
20 Defendant. ARGUMENT, OR TESTIMONY
REGARDING PRODUCTS OTHER THAN
21 ROUNDUP; DECLARATION 0F
FLETCHER V. TRAMMELL
22
Department: $24
23 Judge: Hon. Gilbert G. Ochoa
24 Hearing Date: July 15, 2021
Hearing Time: 9:00 AM
25
Complaint Filed: August 14, 2020
26 Trial Date: July 19, 2021
27
28
0059420 l -2 Case No. CIVSBZIO4801
TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION
EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, ARGUMENT, OR TESTIMONY REGARDING PRODUCTS OTHER
THAN ROUNDUP
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Monsanto Company (“Monsanto") seeks to exclude “any evidence of any
Monsanto products other than Roundup. Monsanto’s sweeping motion is overly broad and not
limited in the scope ofthe evidence that Monsanto seeks t0 exclude. While Plaintiff does not contest
that, under California law, certain evidence would be properly excluded from the trial ofthis matter
including: (1) the final outcomes (includingjury verdicts) of past or pending lawsuits; and (2) prior
judicial decisions, opinions, and findings 0f fact from other cases, Plaintiff does contest that any and
all evidence should be excluded oflitigations involving similar products.
10 A blanket exclusion of any and all evidence that relates in any way to other products that are
11 not Roundup products is overly broad and is even likely to exclude some of Monsanto’s own studies
12 on glyphosate-based products. As it is likely that some of Monsanto’s own studies evaluated
LLP
California
Law 13 glyphosate-based products other than Roundup, Monsanto should be more reserved in its Motion.
at
LAW
Hills,
14 Furthermore, IARC evaluated all glyphosate products, not limiting its thorough analysis to only
Attorneys
15 Roundup products, and general causation experts talk about all glyphosate-based products rather
KIESEL
Beverly
16 than one brand. This Court should resist Monsanto’s attempt to suppress relevant evidence and deny
17 Monsanto’s Motion.
18 II. ARGUMENT
19 Only evidence that is relevant to the issues before the Court is admissible. Cal. Evid. Code
20 § 350. However, evidence need not bear directly on any issue, and it is “‘admissible if it tends t0
21 prove the issue, or constitutes a link in the chain of proof.”’ Dike v. Golden State Ca, 269 P.2d
22 619, 622 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 1954) (quoting Firlotte v. Jessee, 172 P.2d 710, 711 (Cal. App. 3d
23 Dist. 1946).
24 A. Evidence 0f Monsanto’s Past Products Is Admissible t0 Prove Knowledge and Duty
25 Evidence of substantially similar products “is relevant to show the existence of a danger, the
26 defendant’s notice of the danger, and the cause . . .
.” Chlopek v. Fed. Ins. Ca, 499 F.3d 692, 699
27 (7th Cir. 2007). Precluding testimony 0f prior accidents has been held to constitute fundamental
28 error. Perret v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Ca, 299 So. 2d 590, 592 (Fla. 1974). In their Motion,
00594201-2 2 Case No. CIVSBZIO4801
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE,
ARGUMENT, OR TESTIMONY REGARDING PRODUCTS OTHER THAN ROUNDUP
Preview
OR+G|NAL F I s: > SUPERIOR CCURT OF CALIFURMA COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO (CA SBN 119854) Paul R. Kiesel SAN HERNARDINO nISTMCT, (CA SBN 286752) Melanie Meneses Palmer KIESEL LAW LLP JUL i. 2 202? 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, California 9021 1-2910 . BY ih'lhg’ggu J Tel: 310-854-4444 D _ Fax: 310-854-0812 mepuw kieselgaikieselJaW palmarflkiesellaw Fletcher V. Trammell, Esq. Alexander G. Dwyer FAX Melissa Binstock Ephron, Esq. Andrew F. Kirkendall TRAMMELL, PC Erin M. Wood 3262 Westheimer Rd., Ste. 423 KIRKENDALL DWYER LLP Houston, TX 77098 4343 Sigma Rd, Suite 200 BY Tel: (800) 405-1740 Dallas, TX 75244 Fax: (800) 532-0992 Tel: 214-271-4027 10 fletchfcbtrammellpccom Fax: 214-253-0629 melissa@tra1nmellpc.c0m ad@kirkendalldwyer.com 11 ak@kirkendalldwyer.com Attorneysfor Plaintiff ewood@kirkendalldwyer.com 12 DONNETTA STEPHENS LLP California Law 13 at SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LAW 14 Hills, Attorneys 15 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO KIESEL Beverly 16 DONNETTA STEPHENS, Case No. CIVSB2104801 17 Plaintiff, Assignedfor All Purposes t0 the Hon. Gilbert G. Ochoa, Dept. $24 18 V. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO 19 MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, 20 Defendant. ARGUMENT, OR TESTIMONY REGARDING PRODUCTS OTHER THAN 21 ROUNDUP; DECLARATION 0F FLETCHER V. TRAMMELL 22 Department: $24 23 Judge: Hon. Gilbert G. Ochoa 24 Hearing Date: July 15, 2021 Hearing Time: 9:00 AM 25 Complaint Filed: August 14, 2020 26 Trial Date: July 19, 2021 27 28 0059420 l -2 Case No. CIVSBZIO4801 TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, ARGUMENT, OR TESTIMONY REGARDING PRODUCTS OTHER THAN ROUNDUP MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Monsanto Company (“Monsanto") seeks to exclude “any evidence of any Monsanto products other than Roundup. Monsanto’s sweeping motion is overly broad and not limited in the scope ofthe evidence that Monsanto seeks t0 exclude. While Plaintiff does not contest that, under California law, certain evidence would be properly excluded from the trial ofthis matter including: (1) the final outcomes (includingjury verdicts) of past or pending lawsuits; and (2) prior judicial decisions, opinions, and findings 0f fact from other cases, Plaintiff does contest that any and all evidence should be excluded oflitigations involving similar products. 10 A blanket exclusion of any and all evidence that relates in any way to other products that are 11 not Roundup products is overly broad and is even likely to exclude some of Monsanto’s own studies 12 on glyphosate-based products. As it is likely that some of Monsanto’s own studies evaluated LLP California Law 13 glyphosate-based products other than Roundup, Monsanto should be more reserved in its Motion. at LAW Hills, 14 Furthermore, IARC evaluated all glyphosate products, not limiting its thorough analysis to only Attorneys 15 Roundup products, and general causation experts talk about all glyphosate-based products rather KIESEL Beverly 16 than one brand. This Court should resist Monsanto’s attempt to suppress relevant evidence and deny 17 Monsanto’s Motion. 18 II. ARGUMENT 19 Only evidence that is relevant to the issues before the Court is admissible. Cal. Evid. Code 20 § 350. However, evidence need not bear directly on any issue, and it is “‘admissible if it tends t0 21 prove the issue, or constitutes a link in the chain of proof.”’ Dike v. Golden State Ca, 269 P.2d 22 619, 622 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 1954) (quoting Firlotte v. Jessee, 172 P.2d 710, 711 (Cal. App. 3d 23 Dist. 1946). 24 A. Evidence 0f Monsanto’s Past Products Is Admissible t0 Prove Knowledge and Duty 25 Evidence of substantially similar products “is relevant to show the existence of a danger, the 26 defendant’s notice of the danger, and the cause . . . .” Chlopek v. Fed. Ins. Ca, 499 F.3d 692, 699 27 (7th Cir. 2007). Precluding testimony 0f prior accidents has been held to constitute fundamental 28 error. Perret v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Ca, 299 So. 2d 590, 592 (Fla. 1974). In their Motion, 00594201-2 2 Case No. CIVSBZIO4801 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, ARGUMENT, OR TESTIMONY REGARDING PRODUCTS OTHER THAN ROUNDUP