throbber
Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 11424 Filed 07/27/20 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
`John F. Lynch (pro hac vice)
`51 West 52nd Street
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (212) 403-1000
`Facsimile: (212) 403-2000
`JFLynch@wlrk.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Bayer Aktiengesellschaft,
`Werner Baumann, Werner Wenning, Liam
`Condon, Johannes Dietsch, and Wolfgang Nickl
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY
`LITIGATION
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`
`City of Grand Rapids General Retirement System
`et al. v. Bayer Aktiengesellschaft et al., Case No.
`20-cv-04737-RS
`
`The subject of this motion for related-case treatment is a putative class action alleging
`
` MDL No. 2741
`
`Case No. 3:16-md-02741-VC
`
`BAYER DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE
`TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
`CONSIDER WHETHER CASES
`SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`
`
`securities fraud by Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (“Bayer”) and certain of its current and former
`
`directors and officers (together, the “Bayer Defendants”). The shareholder plaintiffs in that
`
`securities case request that it be treated as related to the roughly 3,350 personal-injury cases
`
`pending against Monsanto Company in this multidistrict proceeding (the “MDL”).
`
`The MDL Co-Lead Plaintiff’s Counsel have observed in response to the motion that the
`
`facts of the securities case “do not fit squarely” within the definition of related cases under Civil
`
`Local Rule 3-12(a). Dkt. No. 11289, at 2. We agree with Co-Lead Counsel’s assessment. The
`
`rule provides that actions are related when: (1) they “concern substantially the same parties,
`
`property, transaction or event”; and (2) it “appears likely that there will be an unduly
`
`burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted
`BAYER DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
`TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`MDL No. 2741, CASE NO. 3:16-MD-02741-VC
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 11424 Filed 07/27/20 Page 2 of 6
`
`before different Judges.” Civil L.R. 3-12(a). Neither prong of the definition applies to the
`
`securities case.
`
`First, there is no meaningful overlap between the parties, property, transactions, or events
`
`in the securities and personal-injury cases. Monsanto, not Bayer, is the principal defendant in the
`
`personal-injury cases. Bayer and its officers and directors, not Monsanto, are the defendants in
`
`the new securities case. The transactions and events at issue in the MDL surround use of
`
`Roundup and questions of medical causation of alleged personal injuries, just as the MDL Panel
`
`intended. Dkt. No. 1, at 2 (“[A]ll the actions entail an overarching query — whether glyphosate
`
`causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in persons exposed to it while using Roundup.”). The
`
`securities case is not about medical causation, but rather investor transactions in Bayer securities
`
`and public statements by Bayer concerning its acquisition of Monsanto. City of Grand Rapids
`
`General Retirement System v. Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, Dkt. No. 1, at 13, Case No. 3:20-cv-
`
`04737-RS (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2020) (alleging that Bayer’s statements about the merger were
`
`materially misleading for failing to disclose risk of Roundup litigation).
`
`Notwithstanding the obvious difference between the securities and personal-injury cases,
`
`the securities plaintiffs claim that “the actions will involve substantially similar witnesses and
`
`will involve overlapping discovery,” Dkt. No. 11257, at 3; but they never identify any such
`
`witnesses nor specify any area where discovery will overlap. They assert in the same conclusory
`
`way that treating the securities and personal-injury cases as related will “serve the interests of
`
`judicial economy,” id., but they never explain how. Neither assertion appears to have any
`
`credible basis, whether identified by the securities plaintiffs or not. Indeed, the MDL Co-Lead
`
`Counsel have noted that the MDL Executive Committee “did not take discovery of Bayer” or
`
`explore questions relevant to the newly filed securities claims — including Bayer’s “knowledge
`
`
`
`BAYER DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
`TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`MDL No. 2741, CASE NO. 3:16-MD-02741-VC
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 11424 Filed 07/27/20 Page 3 of 6
`
`of the litigation risks posed by the Roundup litigation and/or its due diligence about the
`
`carcinogenicity of glyphosate and Roundup” — because those issues are “not relevant to the
`
`personal injury cases.” Dkt. No. 11289, at 2.
`
`Second, because the securities and personal-injury cases are so fundamentally different
`
`and the respective proceedings at such different stages, there is no reason to expect any
`
`duplication of labor or expense if the cases are conducted before different Judges, nor any risk of
`
`inconsistent rulings. The MDL cases are well beyond motions to dismiss, currently stayed in
`
`favor of ongoing settlement efforts, with trial preparations ordered to resume in November for
`
`any cases not settled by then. Dkt. No. 11293. In stark contrast, the securities case was just filed
`
`on July 15, 2020; lead-plaintiff motion practice mandated by the Private Securities Litigation
`
`Reform Act will likely consume the next several weeks; and briefing on motions to dismiss will
`
`follow from there with a statutory stay of discovery in place in the meantime. City of Grand
`
`Rapids, Dkt. No. 1; 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i), (B)(i), (b)(3)(B).
`
`Accordingly, the securities plaintiffs’ warnings about “unduly burdensome duplication of
`
`labor and expenses” ring hollow. Dkt. No. 11257, at 3. Movants do not offer a single example
`
`of what burdens or duplications might befall the parties or the Court if the cases remain
`
`unrelated. And they do not muster even a conclusory suggestion how conflicting rulings could
`
`ever occur in cases against different defendants that seek different relief under different legal
`
`theories based on different facts. In short, they have not shown that these cases are related under
`
`Civil Local Rule 3-12(a). See Hodges v. Akeena Solar, Inc., Case No. 5:09-cv-02147-JW, 2010
`
`WL 2756536, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2010) (cases involving different claims, defendants, and
`
`procedural postures not related even though they involved “substantially the same transaction
`
`and events”).
`
`
`
`BAYER DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
`TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`MDL No. 2741, CASE NO. 3:16-MD-02741-VC
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 11424 Filed 07/27/20 Page 4 of 6
`
`Unable to meet the definition of related cases under this Court’s rules, the securities
`
`plaintiffs invoke decisions of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to support their
`
`request for related treatment. Dkt. No. 11257, at 3-4. Those decisions do not alter the analysis
`
`here. For one thing, they apply the standard for multidistrict transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a)
`
`rather than the related-case definition of Civil Local Rule 3-12(a), which governs here. But even
`
`if the MDL standard were relevant, the securities plaintiffs have not shown that their case shares
`
`“one or more common questions of fact” with the personal-injury cases, or that transfer from one
`
`Judge to another within this District would serve the “convenience of parties and witnesses” or
`
`“promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions” in any way. 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). And
`
`while the movants’ MDL decisions show that cases asserting different legal claims can be
`
`suitable for MDL treatment when they satisfy the standards of § 1407(a), the MDL Panel has
`
`been equally clear — including in this very case — in refuting the securities plaintiffs’
`
`contention that a common factual backdrop is enough to warrant coordination of cases where, as
`
`here, coordination will not promote the efficient conduct of the multiple actions at issue.1
`
`
`1 None of the cited MDL cases permits what the securities plaintiffs seek here — i.e.,
`coordinated treatment of securities cases that do not share common fact questions with cases
`based on other legal theories — as all involved fact issues that were common across the multiple
`causes of action at issue. In re CenturyLink Residential Customer Billing Disputes Litig., 280 F.
`Supp. 3d 1383, 1384 (J.P.M.L. 2017) (deceptive billing practices); In re Volkswagen “Clean
`Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig., 148 F. Supp. 3d 1367, 1368 (J.P.M.L.
`2015) (deceptive “defeat device” in diesel engines); In re Lumber Liquidators Chinese-
`Manufactured Flooring Prod. Mktg., Sales Practices & Prod. Liab. Litig., 109 F. Supp. 3d 1382,
`1383 (J.P.M.L. 2015) (misrepresentations about laminate flooring); In re Standard & Poor’s
`Rating Agency Litig., 949 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1361 (J.P.M.L. 2013) (misrepresentations relating to
`ratings of securities); In re Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Foreign Exch. Transactions Litig.,
`857 F. Supp. 2d 1371, 1373 & n.6 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (manipulation of foreign exchange
`transactions); In re MF Glob. Holdings Ltd. Inv. Litig., 857 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1380 (J.P.M.L.
`2012) (shortfall in customer accounts); In re State St. Bank & Tr. Co. Fixed Income Funds Inv.
`Litig., 560 F. Supp. 2d 1388, 1389 (J.P.M.L. 2008) (mismanagement of bond funds); In re
`UnumProvident Corp. Sec., Derivative & “ERISA” Litig., 280 F. Supp. 2d 1377, 1379 (J.P.M.L.
`2003) (claims handling practices).
`
`BAYER DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
`TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`MDL No. 2741, CASE NO. 3:16-MD-02741-VC
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 11424 Filed 07/27/20 Page 5 of 6
`
`Thus, in multiple Notices to Counsel, the MDL Panel has repeatedly held that personal-
`
`injury cases alleging that Roundup caused cancers other than non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma were
`
`“not appropriate for inclusion in this MDL.” In re Roundup Prods. Liab. Litig., Dkt. No. 1674,
`
`MDL No. 2741 (J.P.M.L. Mar. 6, 2020) (leiomyosarcoma); In re Roundup Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`
`Dkt. No. 1368, MDL No. 2741 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 24, 2019) (adenocarcinoma); In re Roundup
`
`Prods. Liab. Litig., Dkt. No. 1322, MDL No. 2741 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 10, 2019) (testicular
`
`seminoma). If cases that involve the common backdrop of alleged use of Roundup but different
`
`kinds of alleged personal injury do not belong in this MDL, then securities claims, which allege
`
`no personal injury and do not turn on exposure to glyphosate or claims of medical causation, do
`
`not belong here either. See also In re BP p.l.c. Sec. Litig., 734 F. Supp. 2d 1376, 1378 (J.P.M.L.
`
`2010) (refusing to add securities actions to MDL proceeding involving claims of property and
`
`economic damage arising from Deepwater Horizon disaster, where despite a common
`
`“underlying genesis,” the “true factual focuses of these two dockets are vastly different” and the
`
`“typical benefits of common discovery would likely be few”).
`
`In sum, while the Bayer Defendants are pleased to defend this newly-filed securities
`
`lawsuit in front of any Judge in this District, they do not agree with the movants’ attempt to
`
`conjure an overlap between their securities case and the personal-injury cases in the MDL, and
`
`respectfully submit that the securities and personal-injury cases are not related under the plain
`
`language of Civil Local Rule 3-12(a).
`
`
`
`BAYER DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
`TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`MDL No. 2741, CASE NO. 3:16-MD-02741-VC
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 11424 Filed 07/27/20 Page 6 of 6
`
`Dated: July 27, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`John F. Lynch (pro hac vice)
`WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
`51 West 52nd Street
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (212) 403-1000
`Facsimile: (212) 403-2000
`JFLynch@wlrk.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Bayer AG, Werner
`Baumann, Werner Wenning, Liam Condon,
`Johannes Dietsch, and Wolfgang Nickl
`
`
`
`
`
`BAYER DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
`TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`MDL No. 2741, CASE NO. 3:16-MD-02741-VC
`
`
`-6-
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket