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
. QRQGRNQW
x
n
‘ ' l ED
St.GRFCgUIé'T 0F CALaFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDSNO
SAN BERNARDINO D|STRICT
. .
JUL 1 2 2021
1 Bart H. Wllhams Bar N0. 134009)
(State
bwilliams@proskauer.com F
2 Manuel F. Cachén (State Bar No. 2 1 6987)
BY
mcachan proskauerxzom 'G 1R. "?QEAEWAY' DEPUTY
3
Shawn S. edingham, Jr. (State Bar No. 275268)
sledingham ,proskauer.com
4
PROSKA R ROSE LLP
2029 Century Park East
Suite 2400
5 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (3 1 0) 557-2900
6 Facsn‘nile: (3 10) 557—2193
7 Lee M. Popkin (admitted pro hac vice)
1 opkin aproskauerxmm
8 . Jenni er Yang (admitted pro hac vice)
jyang .proskauer.com
PROS AUER ROSE LLP
11 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
10 Telephone: (212) 969—3000
Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
1 1
Attorneys for Defendants
12 MONSANTO COMPANY AND CROWN ACE
HARDWARE
13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1 5 DONNETTA STEPHENS, Case No. CIVSB2104801
1 6 Plaintiff DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION INLIMINE NO. 2
.17
vs. TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY,
AND ARGUMENT OF FOREIGN
_
MONSANTO COMPANY, WILBUR-ELLIS REGULATORY ACTIONS AND
18 AND CROWN ACE
NUTRITION, LLC DECISIONS BY GOVERNMENTAL
HARDWARE, AGENCIES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES
19
Dafendants- Judge: Hon. Gilbert G. Ochoa
20 Dept: SZ4-SBJC
Complaint Filed: August 4, 2020
21 Trial Date: July 19, 2021
Hearing Date: July 15, 2021
22 Time: 9:00 am.
23 [Filed concurrently withOmnibus Declaration
0f Shawn Ledmgham, Jr.; refers to
S.
24 previously submitted Omnibus Declaration of
Jennlfer L. Jones, filed July 2, 2021]
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION T0 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION INLIMINE NO. 2
7
1 I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff asks this Court to exclude all evidence and testimony regarding findings and
conclusions of foreign regulatory agencies, While
at the same time seeking to rely heavil
y on the
hazard assessment conducted by the International
Agency for Research 0n Cancer (“lARC”), an
international organization with no regulatory authority. Plaintiff cannot have it both ways.
Numerous regulatory and non-regulatory organizations throug
hout the world have evaluated the
data concerning glyphosate, including conducting
human health risk assessments both prior to and
following IARC’s classification, and IARC essentially stands alone in its conclusions. Plaintiff,
however, wants the jury to hear only about the conclu
sions reached by IARC while preventing the
10 jury from hearing about conclusions reached
by foreign health and regulatory entities that have
1 1 evaluated the same (and frequently more)
data, and Who have the actual responsibility for regulating
12 these products in their respective jurisdiction
s. Conclusions 0f international regulatory
bodies that
13 there is no evidence to support that glyphosate is carcinogenic
are relevant to the issues in this case
14 and have great probative value.
15 Moreover, if the IARC classification is admitted, fundamental fairness dictates that the
16 scientific determinations made by other entities, including foreign regulatory
bodies, also must be
17 admitted. Unlike IARC, which conducted a “hazard assessment,” reviewing
only a ponion of the
18 scientific data available and considering
only the preliminary question of whether there is some
19 evidence that a substance can cause cancer under
any circumstances, the foreign regulatory entities
20 conducted more fulsome “risk assessments,”
Which assess potential risks at actual real-world
21 exposure levels. If anything, it is IARC’S standards that are distinct from California law and are not
22 relevant here, not the standards employed by the foreign regulatory bodies.
23 Most recently, Judge Geode denied a similar moticn in limine in Caballero and allowed
24 Monsanto to introduce evidence of foreign regulatory actions. See Omnibus Declar
ation of Jennifer
25 L. Jones in Support of Defendants” Motions in Limine (“Jones Decl.”), EX. 4 (Caballero Order
at
26 48—49 (agreeing with Monsanto “that it would not be fair to allow the jury to believe that only one
27 reputable foreign organization [IARC has
] studied glyphosate and reached a scientific determ
ination
28 about its carcinogenicity” and further finding
that “the scientific evaluation of glypho
sate by
1
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION T0 PLAINTIFF’S MOTI
ON INLIMINE NO. 2
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
. QRQGRNQW x n ‘ ' l ED St.GRFCgUIé'T 0F CALaFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDSNO SAN BERNARDINO D|STRICT . . JUL 1 2 2021 1 Bart H. Wllhams Bar N0. 134009) (State bwilliams@proskauer.com F 2 Manuel F. Cachén (State Bar No. 2 1 6987) BY mcachan proskauerxzom 'G 1R. "?QEAEWAY' DEPUTY 3 Shawn S. edingham, Jr. (State Bar No. 275268) sledingham ,proskauer.com 4 PROSKA R ROSE LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2400 5 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (3 1 0) 557-2900 6 Facsn‘nile: (3 10) 557—2193 7 Lee M. Popkin (admitted pro hac vice) 1 opkin aproskauerxmm 8 . Jenni er Yang (admitted pro hac vice) jyang .proskauer.com PROS AUER ROSE LLP 11 Times Square New York, NY 10036 10 Telephone: (212) 969—3000 Facsimile: (212) 969-2900 1 1 Attorneys for Defendants 12 MONSANTO COMPANY AND CROWN ACE HARDWARE 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 1 5 DONNETTA STEPHENS, Case No. CIVSB2104801 1 6 Plaintiff DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION INLIMINE NO. 2 .17 vs. TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY, AND ARGUMENT OF FOREIGN _ MONSANTO COMPANY, WILBUR-ELLIS REGULATORY ACTIONS AND 18 AND CROWN ACE NUTRITION, LLC DECISIONS BY GOVERNMENTAL HARDWARE, AGENCIES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES 19 Dafendants- Judge: Hon. Gilbert G. Ochoa 20 Dept: SZ4-SBJC Complaint Filed: August 4, 2020 21 Trial Date: July 19, 2021 Hearing Date: July 15, 2021 22 Time: 9:00 am. 23 [Filed concurrently withOmnibus Declaration 0f Shawn Ledmgham, Jr.; refers to S. 24 previously submitted Omnibus Declaration of Jennlfer L. Jones, filed July 2, 2021] 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION T0 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION INLIMINE NO. 2 7 1 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff asks this Court to exclude all evidence and testimony regarding findings and conclusions of foreign regulatory agencies, While at the same time seeking to rely heavil y on the hazard assessment conducted by the International Agency for Research 0n Cancer (“lARC”), an international organization with no regulatory authority. Plaintiff cannot have it both ways. Numerous regulatory and non-regulatory organizations throug hout the world have evaluated the data concerning glyphosate, including conducting human health risk assessments both prior to and following IARC’s classification, and IARC essentially stands alone in its conclusions. Plaintiff, however, wants the jury to hear only about the conclu sions reached by IARC while preventing the 10 jury from hearing about conclusions reached by foreign health and regulatory entities that have 1 1 evaluated the same (and frequently more) data, and Who have the actual responsibility for regulating 12 these products in their respective jurisdiction s. Conclusions 0f international regulatory bodies that 13 there is no evidence to support that glyphosate is carcinogenic are relevant to the issues in this case 14 and have great probative value. 15 Moreover, if the IARC classification is admitted, fundamental fairness dictates that the 16 scientific determinations made by other entities, including foreign regulatory bodies, also must be 17 admitted. Unlike IARC, which conducted a “hazard assessment,” reviewing only a ponion of the 18 scientific data available and considering only the preliminary question of whether there is some 19 evidence that a substance can cause cancer under any circumstances, the foreign regulatory entities 20 conducted more fulsome “risk assessments,” Which assess potential risks at actual real-world 21 exposure levels. If anything, it is IARC’S standards that are distinct from California law and are not 22 relevant here, not the standards employed by the foreign regulatory bodies. 23 Most recently, Judge Geode denied a similar moticn in limine in Caballero and allowed 24 Monsanto to introduce evidence of foreign regulatory actions. See Omnibus Declar ation of Jennifer 25 L. Jones in Support of Defendants” Motions in Limine (“Jones Decl.”), EX. 4 (Caballero Order at 26 48—49 (agreeing with Monsanto “that it would not be fair to allow the jury to believe that only one 27 reputable foreign organization [IARC has ] studied glyphosate and reached a scientific determ ination 28 about its carcinogenicity” and further finding that “the scientific evaluation of glypho sate by 1 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION T0 PLAINTIFF’S MOTI ON INLIMINE NO. 2