After being ordered to pay $78.5 million to a plaintiff in state court action, Monsanto is now defending itself against another suit in federal court. The early indications in the trial have not been as good for the plaintiff as the judge in the case has sharply limited the evidence that can be introduced at trial. Now, the same judge is threatening to “shut down” one of the plaintiff’s Roundup lawsuit attorneys after accusing the attorney of impermissible talking about an area of the case where the judge had previously excluded the evidence.
Bayer weed killer cancer lawsuit
The case has been brought by Edwin Hardeman, who is suffering from non-Hodgkins lymphoma. The plaintiff in the Monsanto Roundup lawsuit alleges that his cancer was caused by prolonged exposure to Roundup that lasted for several decades. Hardeman says that he used the product once a month for decades. Federal courts provide for “bellwether” cases when there is multi-district litigation, and this case is a bellwether case for the Roundup litigation. This case follows a statement from the World Health Organization, based on existing scientific research, that glyphosate is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” Should Monsanto lose this case, it could foreshadow massive legal liability, especially in light of the large possible jury verdict.
Roundup lawsuit
Previously, Monsanto had lost a verdict at the state court level. The jury initially hit the company with a verdict of nearly $300 million, finding its product to be liable for the plaintiff’s terminal cancer. However, upon review of the verdict, the trial judge reduced the amount that Monsanto must pay to $78.5 million. The Roundup lawsuits have claimed that Roundup is a defective product since it can cause cancer in those who are exposed to it. In the pre-trial phase, there is often disagreement as to which evidence can be considered by the jury at trial. One side typically will want to introduce evidence and the other party will file a motion with the court attempting to limit what is allowed to go in front of the jury. Then, the judge issues a ruling as to whether the evidence can be introduced at trial.
Monsanto lawsuit
Here, the judge excluded evidence regarding some of Monsanto’s conduct. Specifically, the company is alleged to have participated in an effort to suppress objective scientific studies that detailed the carcinogenic risks of Roundup. At the same time, the company allegedly acted as a ghostwriter in composing other studies that disclaimed the link between Roundup and cancer. This evidence was in front of the jury at a previous trial in state court. The jury viewed documents that showed Monsanto’s efforts to “bully” scientists into reaching certain findings and to dissuade them from opining that Roundup causes cancer. However, for purposes of this trial, Judge Vince Chhabria claimed that this evidence, which swayed a previous jury, was only a “distraction.”
Weedkiller lawsuit
To be clear, this ruling does not forbid the plaintiff from introducing studies that show a connection between Roundup and cancer. However, Monsanto’s alleged misconduct pertaining to those studies is off limits for the jury. To the extent that Monsanto attempts to introduce its own studies that deny a linkage between Roundup and cancer, the jury may not hear of any efforts that Monsanto may have made to influence the results of these studies.
For this particular trial, the judge’s ruling means that evidence of purportedly improper actions by the company to influence science cannot go in front of the jury in the liability phase of the trial. Instead, the jury can only consider this if they find Monsanto liable. Then, it can hear this evidence when it comes to awarding the plaintiff damages, since the information can be factored into the calculation of punitive damages.
Here, the plaintiff’s attorney has been quoted in interviews as expressing their displeasure with the judge’s decision to exclude this evidence. This deprives the plaintiff of a significant part of their case. The judge’s ruling increases the chance that the jury’s verdict will be appealed in the event that the jury finds for Monsanto. Still, the inability to get this information in front of a jury does not bode well for the plaintiff’s prospects of success at trial.
Controversial opening statement
At trial, the plaintiff’s attorney gave an opening statement that arguably touched upon some of the issues that the judge placed off limits for the jury. The attorney described Monsanto’s involvement in some of the research as well as its communications with the Environmental Protection Agency. After the attorney spoke at length about these topics, the judge ordered the jury out of the courtroom and then launched into a diatribe against the plaintiff’s attorney. The judge sternly informed the attorney that she had crossed into areas that were forbidden to be raised and warned her that, in the event that she ventured into these topics again, she would be “shut down.” This meant that the judge would put an end to her opening statement. Even as the judge eventually allowed the attorney to finish her opening statement, the judge continued to rail against what the attorney had previously said, calling it “incredibly dumb.” Beyond that, the judge ordered the ordered the attorney to file a motion by the end of the day to persuade the judge not to sanction and fine her for venturing into a barred area.
“with a grain of salt.”
In addition, the judge repeatedly interrupted the plaintiff’s attorney’s opening statement, cautioning the jury to take some of what she was saying “with a grain of salt.” Further, the judge also attempted to rush certain parts of the opening statement when the judge felt that the attorney was belaboring the point.
The judge’s decision in the Roundup lawsuit to limit the evidence along with the fireworks during the opening statement do not represent the most fortuitous start to the case for the Monsanto Roundup lawsuit plaintiff. There are a total of three trials set to be heard in front of Judge Chhabria. The judge has otherwise stated that he believes that the link between Roundup and cancer is “fairly weak.” Currently, there are over 11,000 Monsanto Roundup lawsuits pending against Monsanto in state and federal courts. If you are seeking information about hair straightener lawsuits or mesothelioma lawsuits, contact us.