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
c Fl L =
dapomgggfigafi
Paul R. Kiesel (CA SBN 119854) SAN BERNARDINO
gfgit‘g?g%o
KIESEL LAW LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard JUL 1'.
2 2021
Beverly Hills, California 9021 1-2910
Tel: 3 10-854-4444 .fi
Fax: 310-854-0812 BY .._._
Inmégzg
A kiesel@kiesel.law
l, DEPUTY
Fletcher V. Trammell, Esq.
QQUI 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
Fax: (800) 532-0992
BY Tel: 2 14-271 -4027
fletch@trammellpc.com Fax: 214-253-0629
melissa@trammellpc.com ad@kirkendalldwyer.com
10
ak@kirkendalldwyer.com
Attorneysfor Plaintiff ewood@kirkendalldwyer.com
11 DONNETTA STEPHENS
12
LLP
California
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Law 13
at
LAW
Hills,
14 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DONNETTA STEPHENS,
Attorneys
15 Case N0. CIVSB2104801
KIESEL
Beverly
16 Plaintiff, Assignedfor All Purposes t0 the Hon. Gilbert
G. Ochoa, Dept. 524
17 v.
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
18 MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE
NO. l4 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO A
19 Defendant. MAGIC TUMOR; DECLARATION OF
FLETCHER V. TRAMMELL
20
Department: $24
21 Judge: Hon. Gilbert G. Ochoa
22 Hearing Date: July 15, 2021
23
Hearing Time: 9:00 AM
Complaint Filed: August 14, 2020
24
Trial Date: July 19, 2021
25
26
27
28
0059420 1-2
Case No. CIVSB2104801
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 14 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO
A MAGIC TUMOR
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
The scope 0f Defendants’ Motion in Limine N0. 14 is unclear as t0 whether they seek t0
exclude any reference to tumors from the 1983 mouse study, 0r ifthey seek
only t0 put a restriction
0n Plaintiff‘s use of adjectives at trial. Plaintiff therefore opposes and addresses both arguments.
Whether a “tumor” exists in the control group of a 1983 mouse study is in dispute. The EPA
OOVON
pathologists who reviewed glyphosate at the time in the 19805 disagreed with arguments by
Monsanto’s paid consultants that there was a tumor in the control group of the mouse study. None
\O 0f Plaintiffs’ experts in this case have viewed the decades old slides and therefore rely on the
10 contemporaneous analysis 0f the EPA pathologists.‘
11 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
12 In 1985, an EPA review of a glyphosate mouse study concluded that “glyphosate was
LLP
California
Law 13 oncogenic in male mice causing renal tubule adenomas, a rare tumor...” In reaching this conclusion,
at
LAW
Hills,
14 an EPA statistician rejected Monsanto’s pushback, stating “. . . a prudent person would reject the
Attorneys
15 Monsanto assumption that Glyphosate dosing has no effect 0n
KIESEL
kidney tumor
Beverly
16 production...Viewpoint is a key issue. Our viewpoint is one 0f protecting the public health when
17 we see suspicious data.“ Based on a “consensus review” of the available
data, the EPA concluded
18 that glyphosate was “a Category C oncogen,” i.e. a possible human carcinogen.4 This was because
19 there were kidney tumors in four mice who had been fed glyphosate and n0 kidney tumors in mice
20 who were not fed glyphosate. Monsanto responded to the EPA, stating that “[t]he0retically, a finding
21 ofeither one less tumor in the high dose group 0r one tumor in the control
or low-dose group results
22 in lack of statistical significance.” Declaration of Fletcher V. Trammell (“Trammell
Decl.”), Ex. 1,
23 p. 3. Monsanto then urged the EPA t0 change its mind because of “serious negative economic
24
1
25 Monsanto well aware that the experts in this case have not seen the thirty-five-year—old
is
slides.
2
April 3, 1985, EPA memo re: mouse oncogenicity study, available at:
26 https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/chemical/foia/web/pdf/l 0360 1/1 0360 1 -1 83.pdf
3
Feb. 24, 1985, EPA memo re: use of historical data, available at:
27
https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/chemicaI/foia/web/pdf/l 0360 1/1 0360 l -1 70.pdf
4
28 March 4, 1985, EPA Consensus Review of Glyphosate, available at:
https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/chemical/foia/web/pdf/1 0360 l/l 0360 -1 7 1 .pdf 1
00594201-2
2 Case No. CIVSB2104801
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. l4 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO
A MAGIC TUMOR
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 c Fl L = dapomgggfigafi Paul R. Kiesel (CA SBN 119854) SAN BERNARDINO gfgit‘g?g%o KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard JUL 1'. 2 2021 Beverly Hills, California 9021 1-2910 Tel: 3 10-854-4444 .fi Fax: 310-854-0812 BY .._._ Inmégzg A kiesel@kiesel.law l, DEPUTY Fletcher V. Trammell, Esq. QQUI 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 Fax: (800) 532-0992 BY Tel: 2 14-271 -4027 fletch@trammellpc.com Fax: 214-253-0629 melissa@trammellpc.com ad@kirkendalldwyer.com 10 ak@kirkendalldwyer.com Attorneysfor Plaintiff ewood@kirkendalldwyer.com 11 DONNETTA STEPHENS 12 LLP California SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Law 13 at LAW Hills, 14 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO DONNETTA STEPHENS, Attorneys 15 Case N0. CIVSB2104801 KIESEL Beverly 16 Plaintiff, Assignedfor All Purposes t0 the Hon. Gilbert G. Ochoa, Dept. 524 17 v. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO 18 MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. l4 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO A 19 Defendant. MAGIC TUMOR; DECLARATION OF FLETCHER V. TRAMMELL 20 Department: $24 21 Judge: Hon. Gilbert G. Ochoa 22 Hearing Date: July 15, 2021 23 Hearing Time: 9:00 AM Complaint Filed: August 14, 2020 24 Trial Date: July 19, 2021 25 26 27 28 0059420 1-2 Case No. CIVSB2104801 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 14 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO A MAGIC TUMOR MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION The scope 0f Defendants’ Motion in Limine N0. 14 is unclear as t0 whether they seek t0 exclude any reference to tumors from the 1983 mouse study, 0r ifthey seek only t0 put a restriction 0n Plaintiff‘s use of adjectives at trial. Plaintiff therefore opposes and addresses both arguments. Whether a “tumor” exists in the control group of a 1983 mouse study is in dispute. The EPA OOVON pathologists who reviewed glyphosate at the time in the 19805 disagreed with arguments by Monsanto’s paid consultants that there was a tumor in the control group of the mouse study. None \O 0f Plaintiffs’ experts in this case have viewed the decades old slides and therefore rely on the 10 contemporaneous analysis 0f the EPA pathologists.‘ 11 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 12 In 1985, an EPA review of a glyphosate mouse study concluded that “glyphosate was LLP California Law 13 oncogenic in male mice causing renal tubule adenomas, a rare tumor...” In reaching this conclusion, at LAW Hills, 14 an EPA statistician rejected Monsanto’s pushback, stating “. . . a prudent person would reject the Attorneys 15 Monsanto assumption that Glyphosate dosing has no effect 0n KIESEL kidney tumor Beverly 16 production...Viewpoint is a key issue. Our viewpoint is one 0f protecting the public health when 17 we see suspicious data.“ Based on a “consensus review” of the available data, the EPA concluded 18 that glyphosate was “a Category C oncogen,” i.e. a possible human carcinogen.4 This was because 19 there were kidney tumors in four mice who had been fed glyphosate and n0 kidney tumors in mice 20 who were not fed glyphosate. Monsanto responded to the EPA, stating that “[t]he0retically, a finding 21 ofeither one less tumor in the high dose group 0r one tumor in the control or low-dose group results 22 in lack of statistical significance.” Declaration of Fletcher V. Trammell (“Trammell Decl.”), Ex. 1, 23 p. 3. Monsanto then urged the EPA t0 change its mind because of “serious negative economic 24 1 25 Monsanto well aware that the experts in this case have not seen the thirty-five-year—old is slides. 2 April 3, 1985, EPA memo re: mouse oncogenicity study, available at: 26 https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/chemical/foia/web/pdf/l 0360 1/1 0360 1 -1 83.pdf 3 Feb. 24, 1985, EPA memo re: use of historical data, available at: 27 https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/chemicaI/foia/web/pdf/l 0360 1/1 0360 l -1 70.pdf 4 28 March 4, 1985, EPA Consensus Review of Glyphosate, available at: https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/chemical/foia/web/pdf/1 0360 l/l 0360 -1 7 1 .pdf 1 00594201-2 2 Case No. CIVSB2104801 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. l4 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO A MAGIC TUMOR