On August 14, 2020 a
Motion-Secondary
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
”'m
g L
D QN/N,
@RAG
.
Bart H. Williams (State Bar No. 134009)
bwilliams proskauencom F I L ED
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Manuel F. achén (State Bar No. 216987)
mcachan proskauer.com COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
Shawn S. edingham, Jr. (State Bar No. 275268)
sledingham cuproskauer.com
JUL l 2 2021
PROSKA R ROSE LLP
2029 Century Park East
Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (3 1 0) 557-2900
BY
géffi
G. R.WREA‘D AY, DEPUTY
Facsunile: (3 10) 557-2193
Lee M. Popkin (admitted pro hac vice)
l opkln aproskauercom
. Jenni er Yang (admitted pro hac vice)
jyang ,.proskauer.com
PROS AUER ROSE LLP
11 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
10 Telephone: (2 1 2) 969-3000
Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
11
Attorneys for Defendants E“ 1.
12 MONSANTO COMPANY AND CROWN ACE
HARDWARE
'13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
15 DONNETTA STEPHENS, Case No. CIVSB2104801
'16 Plaintiff DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION T0
VS.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION INLLMINE
17 N0. 3 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE,
MONSANTO COMPANY, WILBUR—ELLIS TESTIMONY, OR ARGUMENT
18
AND CROWN ACE
NUTRITION, LLC THAT EPA REGISTRATION
HARDWARE, PRECLUDES MONSANTO FROM
19 WARNING OF THE RISK OF NON-
Defend ants. HODGKIN’S LYMPHOMA
20
Judge: Hon. Gilbert G. Ochoa
21 Dept: SZ4-SBJC
Complaint Filed: August 4, 2020
22 Trial Date: July 19, 2021
Hearing Date: July 15, 2021
23 Time: 9:00 am.
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION T0 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION INLIAI
INE NO. 3
.
I .
l I. INTRODUCTION
2 Plaintiff asks this Court to preclude Defendants from offering any evidence, testimony, or
3 argument that (1) Monsanto was not legally permitted to redesign Roundup’s formulation or re-
4 label the products without approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), and (2)
5 there is clear evidence that EPA would reject the cancer warning that Plaintiff contends state law
requires. P1.’s MIL 3 at 4. In support of her motion, Plaintiff argues that this Court should reject
Defendants’ legal defense that Plaintiff’s claims are expressly and impliedly preempted
by the
KOOONQ
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”). Pl.’s MIL 3 at 4-9. But arguments
about the merits of Defendants’ federal preemption defense are already before this Court in briefing
10 on Defendants’ pending motion for summajy judgment, and those arguments are not properly
11 relitigated in a motion in Zimz'ne. In any event, even if Plaintiff's arguments were proper at this
12 stage, this Coun should deny Plaintiff’s motion because the evidence that Plaintiff seeks to exclude
13 is highly probative of other defenses in this case and is not unduly prejudicial, will not confuse the
14 issues, and will not mislead the jury.
15 II. ARGUMENT
16 A. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Attempts to Improperly Relitigate the Merits of a
17 Case-Dispositive Legal Issue, and Should Be Denied for That Reason Alone
18 Plaintiff’s motion in Zimine asks this Court to rule on the merits of a legal issue—namely,
19 whether FIFRA preempts her state—law failure-to—wam claims. See Pl. ’s MIL 3 at 4-9. But Plaintiff
20 misapprehends the nature and purpose 0f a motion in limine. Such motions are filed to determine
21 what factual proof may be excluded from trial, not t0 litigate or relitigate legal issues that should be
22 resolved by a court on the merits. Cf. Evidence Code § 352.
23 Here, Plaintiff” s preclusion arguments are an improper attempt to reargue the merits 0f the
24 preemption dispute. There is already a pending motion for summary judgment on the preemption
25 issue before this Court. See Defendants’ Re—Filed Motion for Summary Judgment at 11 e! seq.
26 Plaintiff’s motion in limine largely repeats her arguments from briefing lodged in opposition t0 that
27 motion. See Pl.’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment at 14-21. Monsanto
28 has already responded t0 those arguments and rather than burden the court with
detailed. repetition
1
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION INLIMINE N0. 3
'
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
”'m g L D QN/N, @RAG . Bart H. Williams (State Bar No. 134009) bwilliams proskauencom F I L ED SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA Manuel F. achén (State Bar No. 216987) mcachan proskauer.com COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT Shawn S. edingham, Jr. (State Bar No. 275268) sledingham cuproskauer.com JUL l 2 2021 PROSKA R ROSE LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (3 1 0) 557-2900 BY géffi G. R.WREA‘D AY, DEPUTY Facsunile: (3 10) 557-2193 Lee M. Popkin (admitted pro hac vice) l opkln aproskauercom . Jenni er Yang (admitted pro hac vice) jyang ,.proskauer.com PROS AUER ROSE LLP 11 Times Square New York, NY 10036 10 Telephone: (2 1 2) 969-3000 Facsimile: (212) 969-2900 11 Attorneys for Defendants E“ 1. 12 MONSANTO COMPANY AND CROWN ACE HARDWARE '13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 15 DONNETTA STEPHENS, Case No. CIVSB2104801 '16 Plaintiff DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION T0 VS. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION INLLMINE 17 N0. 3 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, MONSANTO COMPANY, WILBUR—ELLIS TESTIMONY, OR ARGUMENT 18 AND CROWN ACE NUTRITION, LLC THAT EPA REGISTRATION HARDWARE, PRECLUDES MONSANTO FROM 19 WARNING OF THE RISK OF NON- Defend ants. HODGKIN’S LYMPHOMA 20 Judge: Hon. Gilbert G. Ochoa 21 Dept: SZ4-SBJC Complaint Filed: August 4, 2020 22 Trial Date: July 19, 2021 Hearing Date: July 15, 2021 23 Time: 9:00 am. 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION T0 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION INLIAI INE NO. 3 . I . l I. INTRODUCTION 2 Plaintiff asks this Court to preclude Defendants from offering any evidence, testimony, or 3 argument that (1) Monsanto was not legally permitted to redesign Roundup’s formulation or re- 4 label the products without approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), and (2) 5 there is clear evidence that EPA would reject the cancer warning that Plaintiff contends state law requires. P1.’s MIL 3 at 4. In support of her motion, Plaintiff argues that this Court should reject Defendants’ legal defense that Plaintiff’s claims are expressly and impliedly preempted by the KOOONQ Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”). Pl.’s MIL 3 at 4-9. But arguments about the merits of Defendants’ federal preemption defense are already before this Court in briefing 10 on Defendants’ pending motion for summajy judgment, and those arguments are not properly 11 relitigated in a motion in Zimz'ne. In any event, even if Plaintiff's arguments were proper at this 12 stage, this Coun should deny Plaintiff’s motion because the evidence that Plaintiff seeks to exclude 13 is highly probative of other defenses in this case and is not unduly prejudicial, will not confuse the 14 issues, and will not mislead the jury. 15 II. ARGUMENT 16 A. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Attempts to Improperly Relitigate the Merits of a 17 Case-Dispositive Legal Issue, and Should Be Denied for That Reason Alone 18 Plaintiff’s motion in Zimine asks this Court to rule on the merits of a legal issue—namely, 19 whether FIFRA preempts her state—law failure-to—wam claims. See Pl. ’s MIL 3 at 4-9. But Plaintiff 20 misapprehends the nature and purpose 0f a motion in limine. Such motions are filed to determine 21 what factual proof may be excluded from trial, not t0 litigate or relitigate legal issues that should be 22 resolved by a court on the merits. Cf. Evidence Code § 352. 23 Here, Plaintiff” s preclusion arguments are an improper attempt to reargue the merits 0f the 24 preemption dispute. There is already a pending motion for summary judgment on the preemption 25 issue before this Court. See Defendants’ Re—Filed Motion for Summary Judgment at 11 e! seq. 26 Plaintiff’s motion in limine largely repeats her arguments from briefing lodged in opposition t0 that 27 motion. See Pl.’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment at 14-21. Monsanto 28 has already responded t0 those arguments and rather than burden the court with detailed. repetition 1 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION INLIMINE N0. 3 '