Preview
ORTGINAL
F l
SUEEGRQ5 CCHifiTC’FCW" p»
KQAN
REAPW NBERNKR DOiJoA
RDWO Dtsmmr
(CA SBN 119854)
Péul R. Kiesel
Melanie Meneses Palmer (CA SBN 286752) JUL l/ 2021
KIESEL LAW LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard .5
BY -
Beverly Hills, California 9021 1-2910 A I;
Tel: 310-854-4444
DEPUTY
Fax: 310-854-0812
kieselchkieseHaW
palmerflkiesellaw
Fletcher V. Trammell, Esq. Alexander G. Dwyer
Melissa Binstock Ephron, Esq. Andrew F. Kirkendall
FAX TRAMMELL, PC Erin M. Wood
OOOONON
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
fletchchtrammellpc.com Fax: 214-253-0629
1nelissa@trammellpc.com ad@kirkendalldwyer.com
ak@kirkendalldwyer.com
11 Attorneysfor Plaintiff ewood@kirkendalldwyer.com
DONNETTA STEPHENS
12
LLP
SUPERIOR COURT OF‘THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
California
Law 13
at
LAW
14
Hills,
Attorneys
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
15
KIESEL
Beverly DONNETTA STEPHENS, Case No. CIVSB2104801
16
Plaintiff, Assignedfor All Purposes t0 the Hon. Gilbert
17 G. Ochoa, Dept. S24
v.
18 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE
19 NO. 9 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE,
Defendant. ARGUMENT OR REFERENCE
20 TO THE SERALINI STUDY;
DECLARATION OF FLETCHER V.
21 TRAMMELL
22 Department: $24
Judge: Hon. Gilbert G. Ochoa
23
Hearing Date: July 15, 2021
24 Hearing Time: 9:00 AM
25 Complaint Filed: August 14, 2020
Trial Date: July 19, 2021
26
27
28
0059420 l-Z Case N0. CIVSBZIO4801
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE,
ARGUMENT OR REFERENCE TO THE SERALINI STUDY
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
ARGUMENT
Two-year rodent studies are designed t0 assess whether an agent is oncogenic, i.e., capable
h 0f inducing tumors. They are required before a pesticide is allowed on the market. Although
Monsanto conducted one mouse and two rat studies on pure glyphosate, it has never conducted such
NONLII
a study 0n a commercial formulation, which contains a mixture of glyphosate, surfactant,
contaminants, and water. This lack oftesting on the formulation is reflected in Monsanto’s internal
emails. For example, Dr. Donna Farmer, a prominent Monsanto toxicologist, explains in a 2003
email:
10 [I]n the US we have some lawn and garden products with the Roundup name on them, but
they contain other active ingredients in addition to glyphosate and they may have different
11 properties from glyphosate... The terms glyphosate and Roundup cannot be used
interchangeably nor can you use “Roundup” for all glyphosate-based herbicides anymore.
12 For example, you cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen... we have not done the
LLP necessary testing 0n the formulation t0 make that statement.
California
Law 13
at Declaration of Fletcher V. Trammell (“Trammell Decl.”), Ex. 1 at 1-2.
LAW
14
Hills,
Although Monsanto has never studied the formulated product in a long-term study, Dr.
Attorneys
15
KIESEL
Beverly Gilles—Eri Séralini and his seven colleagues from the University 0f Caen and University of Verona
16
conducted a study in rats, using Roundup, that spanned two years. As the authors explain, their study
17
“was not designed as a carcinogenicity study” but was actually a “follow up investigation of a 90—
18
day feeding study conducted by Monsanto.” However, instead 0f stopping the study at 90 days, the
19
researchers continued it for two years. Trammell Decl., Ex. 2 at 1. Thus, the conclusion ofthe study
20
does not “purport[] t0 stand” for “causation” as Monsanto claims in its motion. Rather, the
21
conclusion is simply that “[o]ur findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need t0 be
22
conducted t0 thoroughly evaluate the safety of . . . pesticides in their full commercial formulation.”
23
Id. The study’s findings with regard to those rats that consumed Roundup for two years were: (1)
24
that 80% 0f the rats that consumed Roundup for two years developed tumors, whereas 30% of the
25
control group had tumors, and (2) that rats treated with Roundup had larger (30% to 130%) tumors
26
compared to the controls. In support of these conclusions, the researchers provided photographs
27
depicting the histopathological slides of various rat tumors and pictures of rats within the treatment
28
00594201-2 2 Case No. CIVSBZlO480l
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE,
ARGUMENT OR REFERENCE TO THE SERALINI STUDY
Preview
ORTGINAL F l SUEEGRQ5 CCHifiTC’FCW" p» KQAN REAPW NBERNKR DOiJoA RDWO Dtsmmr (CA SBN 119854) Péul R. Kiesel Melanie Meneses Palmer (CA SBN 286752) JUL l/ 2021 KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard .5 BY - Beverly Hills, California 9021 1-2910 A I; Tel: 310-854-4444 DEPUTY Fax: 310-854-0812 kieselchkieseHaW palmerflkiesellaw Fletcher V. Trammell, Esq. Alexander G. Dwyer Melissa Binstock Ephron, Esq. Andrew F. Kirkendall FAX TRAMMELL, PC Erin M. Wood OOOONON 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 fletchchtrammellpc.com Fax: 214-253-0629 1nelissa@trammellpc.com ad@kirkendalldwyer.com ak@kirkendalldwyer.com 11 Attorneysfor Plaintiff ewood@kirkendalldwyer.com DONNETTA STEPHENS 12 LLP SUPERIOR COURT OF‘THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA California Law 13 at LAW 14 Hills, Attorneys COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 15 KIESEL Beverly DONNETTA STEPHENS, Case No. CIVSB2104801 16 Plaintiff, Assignedfor All Purposes t0 the Hon. Gilbert 17 G. Ochoa, Dept. S24 v. 18 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE 19 NO. 9 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, Defendant. ARGUMENT OR REFERENCE 20 TO THE SERALINI STUDY; DECLARATION OF FLETCHER V. 21 TRAMMELL 22 Department: $24 Judge: Hon. Gilbert G. Ochoa 23 Hearing Date: July 15, 2021 24 Hearing Time: 9:00 AM 25 Complaint Filed: August 14, 2020 Trial Date: July 19, 2021 26 27 28 0059420 l-Z Case N0. CIVSBZIO4801 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, ARGUMENT OR REFERENCE TO THE SERALINI STUDY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ARGUMENT Two-year rodent studies are designed t0 assess whether an agent is oncogenic, i.e., capable h 0f inducing tumors. They are required before a pesticide is allowed on the market. Although Monsanto conducted one mouse and two rat studies on pure glyphosate, it has never conducted such NONLII a study 0n a commercial formulation, which contains a mixture of glyphosate, surfactant, contaminants, and water. This lack oftesting on the formulation is reflected in Monsanto’s internal emails. For example, Dr. Donna Farmer, a prominent Monsanto toxicologist, explains in a 2003 email: 10 [I]n the US we have some lawn and garden products with the Roundup name on them, but they contain other active ingredients in addition to glyphosate and they may have different 11 properties from glyphosate... The terms glyphosate and Roundup cannot be used interchangeably nor can you use “Roundup” for all glyphosate-based herbicides anymore. 12 For example, you cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen... we have not done the LLP necessary testing 0n the formulation t0 make that statement. California Law 13 at Declaration of Fletcher V. Trammell (“Trammell Decl.”), Ex. 1 at 1-2. LAW 14 Hills, Although Monsanto has never studied the formulated product in a long-term study, Dr. Attorneys 15 KIESEL Beverly Gilles—Eri Séralini and his seven colleagues from the University 0f Caen and University of Verona 16 conducted a study in rats, using Roundup, that spanned two years. As the authors explain, their study 17 “was not designed as a carcinogenicity study” but was actually a “follow up investigation of a 90— 18 day feeding study conducted by Monsanto.” However, instead 0f stopping the study at 90 days, the 19 researchers continued it for two years. Trammell Decl., Ex. 2 at 1. Thus, the conclusion ofthe study 20 does not “purport[] t0 stand” for “causation” as Monsanto claims in its motion. Rather, the 21 conclusion is simply that “[o]ur findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need t0 be 22 conducted t0 thoroughly evaluate the safety of . . . pesticides in their full commercial formulation.” 23 Id. The study’s findings with regard to those rats that consumed Roundup for two years were: (1) 24 that 80% 0f the rats that consumed Roundup for two years developed tumors, whereas 30% of the 25 control group had tumors, and (2) that rats treated with Roundup had larger (30% to 130%) tumors 26 compared to the controls. In support of these conclusions, the researchers provided photographs 27 depicting the histopathological slides of various rat tumors and pictures of rats within the treatment 28 00594201-2 2 Case No. CIVSBZlO480l PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, ARGUMENT OR REFERENCE TO THE SERALINI STUDY