HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Monsanto: Judge Threatens...

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 06:42 AM

Monsanto: Judge Threatens To 'Shut Down' Cancer Patient's Lawyer

Source: The Guardian

Judge in Roundup maker’s first federal trial had banned discussion of the company’s alleged manipulation of science. Monsanto is facing its first federal trial over allegations that its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer, but a US judge has blocked attorneys from discussing the corporation’s alleged manipulation of science.

In an extraordinary move in a packed San Francisco courtroom on Monday, US judge Vince Chhabria threatened to sanction and “shut down” a cancer patient’s attorney for violating his ban on talking about Monsanto’s influence on government regulators and cancer research. “You’ve completely disregarded the limitations that were set upon you,” the visibly angry judge said to attorney Aimee Wagstaff, threatening to prevent her from continuing. “If you cross the line one more time … your opening statement will be over … If I see a single inappropriate thing on those slides, I’m shutting you down.”

The unusual conflict in the federal courtroom has fueled concerns among Monsanto’s critics that the trial may be unfairly stacked against the plaintiff, Edwin Hardeman, a 70-year-old Santa Rosa man who alleges that his exposure to Roundup over several decades caused his cancer. Building on longstanding allegations, Hardeman’s lawyers and other critics have argued that Monsanto has for years suppressed negative studies and worked to promote and “ghostwrite” favorable studies about its herbicide to the public and regulators.

In a blow to the plaintiffs, Chhabria this year approved Monsanto’s request to prohibit Hardeman’s attorneys from raising allegations about the corporation’s conduct, saying issues about its influence on science and government were a “significant … distraction”. That means jurors must narrowly consider the studies surrounding Roundup’s cancer risks, and if they rule that Monsanto caused Hardeman’s illness, then in a second phase the jury would learn about the company’s conduct when assessing liability.


Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/25/monsanto-federal-trial-roundup-cancer



The Hardeman trial is viewed as a 'bellwether' case for 100s of other plaintiffs with similar claims, meaning the decision could impact future litigation and settlements. The high profile case comes during increased examination of the health impacts of glyphosate sold under the 'Roundup' brand.

Last August concerns about 'Roundup' grew rapidly after a jury in Ca. gave a landmark verdict that Monsanto was liable for a terminally ill man’s cancer and owed him $289m in damages. The ruling against Monsanto set the stage for a new level of US cancer litigation and spurred debates on regulation and advocacy to restrict the chemical across the globe.

40 replies, 3838 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply Monsanto: Judge Threatens To 'Shut Down' Cancer Patient's Lawyer (Original post)
appalachiablue Feb 2019 OP
DFW Feb 2019 #1
appalachiablue Feb 2019 #2
lagomorph777 Feb 2019 #16
Haggis for Breakfast Feb 2019 #38
pecosbob Feb 2019 #3
appalachiablue Feb 2019 #4
Judi Lynn Feb 2019 #40
sinkingfeeling Feb 2019 #5
BeneathTheMire Feb 2019 #7
ArizonaLib Feb 2019 #12
watoos Feb 2019 #6
ArizonaLib Feb 2019 #8
oldsoftie Feb 2019 #9
watoos Feb 2019 #15
PatSeg Feb 2019 #21
PatSeg Feb 2019 #23
DFW Feb 2019 #29
PatSeg Feb 2019 #31
Haggis for Breakfast Feb 2019 #39
PatSeg Feb 2019 #10
Fix The Stupid Feb 2019 #13
PatSeg Feb 2019 #14
lagomorph777 Feb 2019 #17
PatSeg Feb 2019 #19
lagomorph777 Feb 2019 #20
PatSeg Feb 2019 #26
oldsoftie Feb 2019 #22
lagomorph777 Feb 2019 #24
oldsoftie Feb 2019 #25
lunasun Feb 2019 #27
oldsoftie Feb 2019 #28
DFW Feb 2019 #30
PatSeg Feb 2019 #32
DFW Feb 2019 #35
PatSeg Feb 2019 #36
ancianita Feb 2019 #11
jberryhill Feb 2019 #18
The Mouth Feb 2019 #33
jberryhill Feb 2019 #34
cstanleytech Feb 2019 #37

Response to appalachiablue (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 06:57 AM

1. Monsanto is an easy target to detest

They seem to like to walk all over everyone and everything.

I know DU has a lurker that jumps in to defend everything Monsanto does, but that doesn't change a thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 07:17 AM

2. A chemical co. the whole neighborhood can despise. And don't

mess with the judge, just doing their job, hopefully.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 11:13 AM

16. In recent years, Monsanto had a whole team on this board trying to get people kicked off

for telling the truth, or even alluding to the truth.

Sounds like they are the high bidder in this court case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 27, 2019, 01:10 AM

38. When did the drop "Chemical" from their Name: The Monsanto Chemical Corporation

Anybody know ??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 07:51 AM

3. Monsanto should be the one that's 'shut down'

closest thing I've ever seen to 'corporate evil'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pecosbob (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 08:05 AM

4. Amen to that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pecosbob (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 27, 2019, 05:27 AM

40. Absolutely. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 08:17 AM

5. Sounds like a nice corporate judge. Who appointed him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 09:19 AM

7. He was appointed by Obama

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeneathTheMire (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 10:12 AM

12. Regardless who appointed the judge, the judge is corrupt

President Eisenhower was asked if he made any mistakes as president, and he replied "Yes, 2 of them are one the supreme court". The chief justice he appointed was Earl Warren who presided over Brown vs Board of Education, a unanimous 9-0 decision and Miranda vs Arizona. Point is, judges don't always reflect the intentions of those appointing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 08:49 AM

6. My family and daughter's family,

 

have been eating organic and home grown ever since GMO's hit the market. It doesn't guarantee that there isn't poison in our food but the odds are a heck of a lot better. Organic foods taste better. When I go for potatoes and see eyes starting to grow I smile because I know they aren't GMO's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to watoos (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 09:47 AM

8. We appreciate that

Every time we go to a corporate owned grocery store and there is an organic section (they keep getting bigger and more common) we know it is families like yours to whom thanks is owed. The more we all consume, the more the markets are forced to carry them. Solidarity!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 09:49 AM

9. I'm sick of Monsanto getting away with everything. Hopefully the jury has been paying attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldsoftie (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 11:10 AM

15. It goes back a ways,

 

Google Fox v Monsanto. 2 journalists, newscasters I think, went out and did a study on steroids in animals and GMO's and similar stuff. This was in Florida I believe. They came back with a very damning expose' on Monsanto. They showed their Fox producer their findings. Immediately Monsanto got involved and edited the report. The 2 newscasters refused to air the edited version because they knew it was a bunch of lies. The 2 were fired, they sued and were reinstated but upon appeal they were fired again for good. The decision basically said that the 2 newscasters were obligated to report the lies for their Fox employer.

My memory is just ok, but that's what I remember.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to watoos (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 11:36 AM

21. Thanks

I don't remember hearing that one, but it makes perfect sense. Monsanto (now Bayer) is much too powerful and dangerous. They have a long disgraceful history and should not be trusted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to watoos (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 11:47 AM

23. Okay, here is a 2011 article I found from a Google search

Monsanto Forced Fox TV to Censor Coverage of Dangerous Milk Drug

I know from personal experience how satisfying it is to catch some nasty multinational corporation telling lies about the safety of their product—especially when that company is Monsanto, the world’s largest maker of genetically modified (GM) foods. So I could only imagine the excitement of investigative reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, who had caught a Monsanto executive on film repeatedly lying about GM bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST).

The two worked at WTVT, a Fox television station in Tampa, Florida, and were described as a “television dream team.” Akre was a former CNN anchorwoman and reporter, Wilson a three-time Emmy Award winner whom Penthouse described as “one of the most famous and feared journalists in America.” Their four-part news series on rbGH was scheduled to begin on February 24, 1997. It was going to expose Monsanto’s lies to the world, and show how the milk from treated cows was dangerously linked to cancer.

<snip>

On the Friday before Monday’s air date, Monsanto’s lawyer faxed a letter to Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News in New York, claiming that the series was biased and unscientific. It threatened, “There is a lot at stake in what is going on in Florida, not only for Monsanto, but also for Fox News and its owner.” Rupert Murdoch, of course is the owner, and part of what was at stake was lots of Monsanto advertising dollars—for the Florida station, the entire Fox network, and Murdoch’s Actmedia, a major advertising agency used by Monsanto. Fox pulled the series for “further review.”

After the Florida station’s general manager, who had a background in investigative reporting, meticulously vetted the show, he verified that every statement was accurate and unbiased. The station re-scheduled the series for the following week. Monsanto’s attorney immediately sent another, more strongly worded letter to Ailes, this time indicating that the news story “could lead to serious damage to Monsanto and dire consequences for Fox News.” The airing was postponed indefinitely.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/monsanto-forced-fox-tv-to_b_186428.html

The station's manager and news manager were both fired shortly afterwards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #23)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 12:54 PM

29. That is how Monsanto works

A whole book ("Seeds of Reprisal" was written about them.

It would not surprise me to find out that Monsanto had literally let the judge know that his family would be in pieces scattered over several states if he didn't rule the way Monsanto wanted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #29)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 02:40 PM

31. I agree

I don't think there are any limits to how far they will go. They have destroyed so many lives in the name of profits, then they say what they are doing is good for the planet and global poverty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #29)

Wed Feb 27, 2019, 01:19 AM

39. Interesting that you mention "seeds"

I remember reading years ago that Monsanto prohibited farmers from using whatever seeds their crops produced for the next season's crops, forcing them to buy new seeds as well as prohibiting them from selling their seeds to someone else. Farmers who ignored this found themselves without access to new seeds (even for other crops). Those who balked at such practices were visited by Monsanto lawyers, set on intimidating these farmers and many were forced out of the business altogether. A lot of very nasty and underhanded business occurred.

Then Monsanto started producing plants and seeds that would not leave fertile seeds after planting. Hard-ball tactics.

Then when studies started looking at cause and effect of cancer, Monsanto just started to steam roll everyone. And has not let us since.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 09:56 AM

10. This is very disturbing

I find it interesting that there are no Monsanto apologists posting on this thread though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 10:13 AM

13. The cheques stopped coming in. So obvious. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fix The Stupid (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 10:23 AM

14. Ah, that would explain it

Or maybe the Russians pay more?

They were getting much too obvious for awhile. People at DU are becoming very perceptive troll watchers these days. I would love to see the demise of this monstrous company.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #14)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 11:15 AM

17. +1 Monsanto had a very powerful team at DU for some time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 11:32 AM

19. Yes and they were very effective

until a lot of us got wise to their tactics. Pretty soon you could see that they were all working from the same playbook and their primary objective was to ridicule posters and shut down any thread that was critical of Monsanto and its products. They were particularly good at pushing the envelope, but not enough to get banned. For awhile, I made it my mission along with a few others, to keep relevant and informative threads alive in spite of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #19)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 11:34 AM

20. I nearly got banned a few times for the tiniest pushback against them.

I guess they took their $$$ elsewhere, some place with more clout such as the courtroom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 11:54 AM

26. Oh yes, I have seen that as well

They formed a powerful front and worked together to undermine legitimate DUers. They would provoke people and then report them when they reacted, just like any schoolyard bully.

Monsanto probably DOES need their money more for the courtroom right now, but like the indestructible monster in a horror movie, they tend to keep coming back. There are still plenty of people to buy off I suppose. Hopefully they will go the way of the lead industry and tobacco companies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 11:46 AM

22. Here? really? wow

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldsoftie (Reply #22)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 11:48 AM

24. They caused a lot of damage to DU's reputation;

I'm still reluctant to say more, given the potential consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 11:49 AM

25. Read here for years, but of course i've missed stories. And obviously missed that too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldsoftie (Reply #25)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 12:20 PM

27. It's Truth- they would come out within minutes of posting on DU.Really bad years ago now not so much

They counted on visceral insults and shaming to make it all go away and not be talked about
I will add they were quite successful too it seemed @ du

Yes harmless they claim you could drink a whole quart of round up it doesnt hurt humans
oh OK monsanto guy go ahead drink it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunasun (Reply #27)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 12:28 PM

28. OMG that was hilarious. "Yes, i could, but i'm not an idiot". What the hell does that even MEAN??

you JUST said you could drink it and it wouldnt hurt you, then you say you'd be an idiot to DO it. he could've just said, no, i'm not gonna drink it. But pointing out that he'd be an IDIOT to do so really screwed him!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 12:58 PM

30. Not yet, anyway

There were one or two who ONLY showed up to defend Monsanto ANY time there was the slightest thing posted against them.

Granted, we have a couple of posters on now who only show up to post about one subject, but these were such obviously paid shills, it's a wonder they didn't post their hourly rate after every post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #30)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 02:45 PM

32. Yeah

If you just type "GMO", they would come at you from all directions. If they couldn't get some sucker to take the bait, they'd just take over the thread by talking to one another. Some of them even had very high post counts, they were pros.

There will undoubtedly always be trolls of some sort and the paid ones are the hardest ones to expose. Now we have to face the "primary trolls" and those are relentless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #32)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 04:21 PM

35. Yes, relentless is indeed the word.

That is one circular firing squad I will not be taking part in. I took a few peeks, and they're already at it tooth and nail, with a few true idealists sprinkled among them

(Pete Buttegeig for Pete's sake! The guy doesn't have a cent to his name, and doesn't have the budget to pay a troll to run down to the corner for a cup of lukewarm coffee, much less post 24/7 on the DU primaries board. He's the real thing, so who would ever support a guy like THAT, right?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #35)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 10:50 PM

36. During the last primary season

I made it a point to stay clear of primary posts for the most part. I was very careful as to what threads I clicked on, because life is too short to play games with trolls. No matter what you say, they have to have the last word and most of what they say is scripted. You can usually tell by the subject line what to expect.

You figure if someone is getting paid to be online and they are expected to be actively posting (I'm sure they are monitored), they will keep answering posts all day long, even taunting people who don't respond. What a truly crappy way to make a living.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 10:02 AM

11. Bottom line: fictional personhoods don't give a fuck about human life. Market values human values.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 11:30 AM

18. Link to the 89 orders thus far in this litigation

 

In case anyone is interested in the actual 89 orders issued in the case thus far...

The one of interest is the order to show cause on the 25th. Also this week, the judge denied Monsanto's motion for summary judgment, but that order is not as useful to advancing the proposition that this judge is crooked, bought-off, or whatever.

https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/VC/roundupmdl

Docket Number Filing Date

Transfer order from Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (.pdf, 117 KB) 1 10/04/2016

Pretrial order no. 1: Consolidation order (.pdf, 125 KB) 2 10/06/2016

Order re bifurcation (.pdf, 104 KB) 25 11/14/2016

Pretrial order no. 2: Custodian and deponent groups (.pdf, 101 KB) 39 11/22/2016

Pretrial order no. 3: Partial schedule for general causation phase (.pdf, 55 KB) 47 11/23/2016

Pretrial order no. 4: Plaintiffs' leadership structure (.pdf, 167 KB) 62 12/07/2016

Pretrial order no. 5: Setting further schedule for general causation phase (.pdf, 54 KB) 78 12/23/2016

Pretrial order no. 6: Production of documents used in deposition preparation (.pdf, 30 KB) 101 01/09/2017

Pretrial order no. 7: Deposition protocol (.pdf, 88 KB) 103 01/10/2017

Pretrial order no. 8: Requesting briefing re relevance of EPA and IARC (.pdf, 30 KB) 120 01/25/0207

Pretrial order no. 9: Setting hearing for Science Day and motion to compel Rowland deposition (.pdf, 32 KB) 126 02/02/2017

Pretrial order no. 10: Denying request to continue depositions (.pdf, 29 KB) 157 02/21/2017

Pretrial order no. 11: Extending deposition deadline (.pdf, 29 KB) 159 02/21/2017

Pretrial order no. 12: Common benefit fund order (.pdf, 341 KB) 161 02/22/2017

Pretrial order no. 13: Hearing on motion to compel (.pdf, 26 KB) 162 02/22/2017

Pretrial order no. 14: Plaintiffs' request for additional discovery (.pdf, 26 KB) 165 02/24/2017

Pretrial order no. 15: Third-party discovery and pending motions to seal (.pdf, 119 KB) 186 03/13/2017

Pretrial order no. 16: Additional discovery re IARC (.pdf, 28 KB) 242 04/18/2017

Pretrial order no. 17: Redaction of identifying information (.pdf, 98 KB) 243 04/18/2017

Pretrial order no. 18: Deadline for additional deposition (.pdf, 26 KB) 251 04/21/2017

Pretrial order no. 19: Rowland deposition topics (.pdf, 29 KB) 260 04/24/2017

Pretrial order no. 20: Denying motion to de-designate Heydens deposition (.pdf, 103 KB) 266 05/01/2017

Pretrial order no. 21: Service of motion to compel testimony (.pdf, 29 KB) 267 05/01/2017

Pretrial order no. 22: Jameson and Ross depositions (.pdf, 30 KB) 268 05/01/2017

Pretrial order no. 23: Motions to compel production and additional testimony (.pdf, 32 KB) 297 05/15/2017

Pretrial order no. 24: Modified schedule for general causation phase (.pdf, 48 KB) 322 05/26/2017

Pretrial order no. 25: Denying motion for leave to file under seal (.pdf, 29 KB) 330 06/06/2017

Pretrial order no. 26: Pre-transfer motions (.pdf, 30 KB) 379 07/06/2017

Pretrial order no. 27: Requesting response to emergency motion (.pdf, 29 KB) 417 08/02/2017

Pretrial order no. 28: Order to show cause; Order re de-designation (.pdf, 34 KB) 442 08/09/2017

Pretrial order no. 29: Order Withdrawing Order to Show Cause (.pdf, 29 KB) 505 09/01/2017

Pretrial order no. 30: Amended Protective Order (.pdf, 80 KB) 519 09/06/2017

Pretrial order no. 31: Notice to State Court Judges (.pdf, 31 KB) 524 09/20/2017

Pretrial order no. 32: Denying motion for attorneys' fees; Granting in part motion to file under seal (.pdf, 104 KB) 544 10/06/2017

Pretrial order no. 33: RE Study Published November 9, 2017 (.pdf, 31 KB) 680 11/10/2017

Pretrial order no. 34: Modifying Schedule (.pdf, 29 KB) 761 11/17/2017

Pretrial order no. 35: Notice to State Court Judges Re Schedule (.pdf, 30 KB) 964 12/14/2017

Pretrial order no. 36: Motions Pending Before Transfer (.pdf, 30 KB) 1021 01/08/2018

Pretrial order no. 37: Setting Schedule for Exchange of Exhibit Lists and Telephonic CMC (.pdf, 30 KB) 1107 02/12/2018

Pretrial order no. 38: Setting Schedule for Daubert Hearing (.pdf, 111 KB) 1112 02/13/2018

Pretrial order no. 39: Re Letter Brief Concerning Exhibit Lists (.pdf, 42 KB) 1154 02/27/2018

Pretrial order no. 40: Re Presentation of Video Deposition Testimony (.pdf, 29 KB) 1164 02/28/2018

Pretrial order no. 41: Re Confidentiality of 1983 Mouse Study (.pdf, 97 KB) 1169 03/03/2018

Clerk's Notice Resetting Time for Oral Argument (.pdf, 84 KB) 1190 03/13/2018

Pretrial order no. 42: Re Oral Argument on March 14, 2018 (.pdf, 94 KB) 1215 03/13/2018

Pretrial order no. 43: Additional Testimony of Drs. Ritz and Portier (.pdf, 30 KB) 1287 03/19/2018

Pretrial order no. 44: Requesting Further Briefing (.pdf, 29 KB) 1537 06/19/2018

Pretrial order no. 45: Summary Judgment and Daubert Motions (.pdf, 433 KB) 1596 07/10/2018

Pretrial order no. 46: Setting Case Management Conference (.pdf, 29 KB) 1659 08/14/2018

Pretrial order no. 47: Re Upcoming Case Management Conference (.pdf, 40 KB) 1682 08/28/2018

Pretrial Order no. 48: Re Sept. 13, 2018 Case Management Conference (.pdf, 108 KB) 1741 09/12/2018

Pretrial Order no. 49: Re Plaintiff Fact Sheets and Upcoming Deadlines (.pdf, 239 KB) 1776 09/17/2018

Pretrial Order no. 50 Attachment: Final Plaintiff Fact Sheet (.pdf, 367 KB) 1883 09/26/2018

Pretrial Order no. 50: Plaintiff Fact Sheet Completion and Deficiencies (.pdf, 147 KB) 1883 09/26/2018

Pretrial Order no. 51: Deadlines for Group 1 Plaintiffs (.pdf, 162 KB) 1884 09/26/2018

Pretrial Order no. 52: Venue Questions for Group 2 Plaintiffs (.pdf, 304 KB) 1920 10/01/2018

Pretrial Order no. 53: Revised Trial Schedule - Group 1 Plaintiffs (.pdf, 179 KB) 1926 10/03/2018

Pretrial order no. 54: Upcoming Deadlines Following October 29, 2018, Case Management Conference (.pdf, 109 KB) 2124 11/01/2018

Pretrial order no. 55: Re Plaintiff Fact Sheets for Plaintiffs with Loss of Consortium Claims (.pdf, 96 KB) 2125 11/02/2018

Pretrial order no. 56: Bellwether Trial Selection (.pdf, 159 KB) 2194 11/20/2018

Pretrial order no. 57: Expert Deposition Discovery Dispute (.pdf, 96 KB) 2218 11/30/2018

Pretrial order no. 58: Briefing on Bifurcation (.pdf, 30 KB) 2268 12/05/2018

Pretrial order no. 59: Filing Expert Reports (.pdf, 95 KB) 2366 12/20/2018

Pretrial order no. 60: Stevick Interrogatory Dispute (.pdf, 101 KB) 2375 12/21/2018

Pretrial order no. 61: Order Bifurcating Trial (.pdf, 182 KB) 2406 01/03/2019

Pretrial order no. 62: Draft Juror Questionnaire (.pdf, 241 KB) 2422 01/04/2019

Pretrial order no. 63: Upcoming Deadlines for Bellwether Trial (.pdf, 93 KB) 2444 01/08/2019

Pretrial order no. 64: January 3, 2019, Discovery Letter (.pdf, 84 KB) 2450 01/09/2019

Pretrial order no. 65: List of Involved Individuals (.pdf, 176 KB) 2519 01/17/2019

Pretrial Order no. 66: Re Evidentiary Submissions (.pdf, 31 KB) 2546 01/24/2019

Pretrial order no. 67: Ruling on Initial Evidentiary Submissions (.pdf, 95 KB) 2586 01/30/2019

Pretrial order no. 68: Numbering for Defense Exhibits (.pdf, 96 KB) 2632 02/01/2019

Pretrial order no. 69: Order Granting Motion to Remand (.pdf, 32 KB) 2639 02/01/2019

Pretrial order no. 70: Final Juror Questionnaire (.pdf, 224 KB) 2645 02/05/2019

Pretrial order no. 71: Re Motion to Amend PTO 50 (.pdf, 72 KB) 2651 02/06/2019

Pretrial order no. 72: Procedure for Certain Motions to Remand (.pdf, 31 KB) 2663 02/07/2019

Pretrial order no. 73: Re Caselaw on Statute of Limitations (.pdf, 53 KB) 2671 02/07/2019

Pretrial order no. 74: Tentative View on Monsanto's Specific Causation Experts (.pdf, 104 KB) 2682 02/11/2019

Pretrial order no. 75: Discussion of Expert Witnesses at Feb. 13, 2019, Hearing (.pdf, 69 KB) 2691 02/12/2019

Pretrial order no. 76: Re Missing Submissions (.pdf, 71 KB) 2699 02/12/2019

Pretrial order no. 77: Court's Proposed Phase 1 Jury Instructions (.pdf, 154 KB) Pret 2706 02/12/2019

Pretrial order no. 78: Guidance for the Parties re Motions in Limine (.pdf, 113 KB) 2707 02/12/2019

Pretrial order no. 79: Confidentiality of Juror Questionnaires (.pdf, 62 KB) 2758 02/13/2019

Pretrial order no. 80: Tentative Juror Excusals (.pdf, 70 KB) 2769 02/15/2019

Pretrial order no. 81: Ruling on Motions in Limine (.pdf, 119 KB) 2775 02/18/2019

Pretrial order no. 82: Parties' Proposed Voir Dire Questions (.pdf, 104 KB) 2776 02/18/2019

Pretrial order no. 83: Time Limits for Trial (.pdf, 68 KB) 2790 02/21/2019

Pretrial order no. 84: Ruling on Deposition Objections for Drs. Turk, Turley, and Ye (.pdf, 81 KB) 2797 02/23/2019

Pretrial order no. 85: Denying Monsanto's Motion for Summary Judgment on Specific Causation (.pdf, 195 KB) 2799
02/24/2019

Pretrial order no. 86: Remaining Summary Judgment Arguments (.pdf, 73 KB) 2800 02/24/2019

Pretrial order no. 87: Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions (.pdf, 78 KB) 2802 02/25/2019

Pretrial order no. 88: Deposition Designations for Dr. Matthew Ross (.pdf, 85 KB) 2810 02/25/2019

Pretrial order no. 89: Initial Ruling on Deposition Designations for Dr. William Reeves (.pdf, 50 KB) 2812 02/25/2019

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #18)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 03:02 PM

33. You do NOT fuck with a judge

if they are totally egregious then you aim for appeal, but if a judge- ANY judge, anywhere - says 'don't mention that' you have to be a pretty stupid lawyer to do so.

Just my observation. Personally I thin Monsanto sucks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Mouth (Reply #33)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 03:09 PM

34. Monsanto does suck

 

But as you can see, there has been a considerable amount of litigation and pre-trial practice over what evidence either side may use. The judge has not ruled uniformly in favor of Monsanto in those disputes.

It is much more significant that the judge ruled against Monsanto's motion for summary judgment this week, but that is not as sexy as a lawyer being rebuked for discussing evidence that had already been ruled out. Incidentally, Monsanto also lost its bid to exclude some of the plaintiffs' evidence.

The plaintiffs’ class action lawyer violated a previous order right out of the box.

So, yeah, this judge got a top notch education, and has held a variety of clerkships and private practice positions, all for the purpose of hopefully some day getting bought off by Monsanto when his ship came in and he was assigned this multi-district class action case. If not for that, he’d be penniless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 11:14 PM

37. Certainly will make the case more difficult to win however if the jury agrees with the plaintiff it

should also hopefully make it more difficult to appeal plus the information over their influence is not entirely out of the picture as according to the article it can then be brought in later during the penalty phase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread