Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 11787 Filed 09/17/20 Page 1 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`MDL No. 2741
`Case No. 16-md-02741-VC
`
`Hon. Vince Chhabria
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
`AND LITIGATION PLAN
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s August 27, 2020 Minute Order, Plaintiffs’ leadership and Monsanto’s
`
`IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS
`LIABILITY LITIGATION
`
`
`This document relates to:
`ALL ACTIONS
`
`
`counsel met and conferred about a plan to address the remaining cases pending before this MDL.
`
`As background, there are currently 3,704 plaintiffs with pending cases within this MDL,
`
`1,954 of which are not settled or subject to a term sheet. The parties are actively engaged in ongoing
`
`settlement discussions for 1,041 of these 1,954 plaintiffs and Monsanto hopes to engage the
`
`remaining 943 plaintiffs as soon as feasible.1
`
`Since the August 27, 2020 case management conference, the parties have continued to engage
`
`in settlement discussions. Significant progress has been made. As disclosed in the pleadings
`
`attaching the redacted letters filed by Andrus Wagstaff, Baum Hedlund and Moore Law Group,
`
`master settlement agreements have now been reached with each of those firms, removing another
`
`approximately 280 cases from the MDL docket and approximately 12,000 cases from the overall
`
`Roundup litigation. Additionally, Monsanto continues to finalize settlement agreements with
`
`numerous other law firms. Plaintiffs’ Co-lead counsel are available to assist counsel for those
`
`Plaintiffs in the MDL resolve their individual cases and are discussing with Monsanto’s settlement
`
`
`1 The numbers of cases provided throughout the pleading are best estimates as of this date. The numbers
`change on a regular basis and therefore should be considered approximations.
`
`1
`JOINT LITIGATION PLAN;16-MD-0274
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 11787 Filed 09/17/20 Page 2 of 7
`
`
`
`counsel a mechanism to facilitate such discussions. The parties also anticipate that Special Master
`
`Feinberg will prioritize cases in Waves 1, 2 and 3 that are not already subject to settlement
`
`agreements as part of his overall initiative to resolve the litigation.
`
`For the purpose of allowing the settlement process to continue, the parties respectfully request
`
`that the stay remain in place until at least November 2, 2020, at which time the Court can assess the
`
`status of settlement discussions throughout the MDL and the need to resume litigation.
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s order at the case management conference, the parties nonetheless
`
`submit the following litigation plan should the Court decide to resume litigation:
`
`For the purposes of this proposal, the Parties have divided the pending cases into “Settled
`
`Cases” and “Active Cases.”
`
`I.
`
`
`Settled Cases
`
`As of this date, there are 1,750 plaintiffs in this MDL that are subject to a settlement
`
`agreement. Because the various settlement programs will take time to administer, the Parties
`
`anticipate being able to start entering dismissals in the next sixty to ninety days. The Parties propose
`
`the following process for dealing with settled cases:
`
`1.
`
`The Court appoints Co-lead Counsel (for the Plaintiffs) and a Monsanto representative to be
`
`designated if the Court approves this procedure (from Defendants) to act as the MDL’s
`
`Settlement Coordinators.
`
`2. Once a particular plaintiff is subject to a settlement agreement, that plaintiff (through counsel)
`
`shall notify the Plaintiff Settlement Coordinators of the settlement, including the full name of
`
`the settling party, the case name, the associated case number, the date of the operative
`
`settlement agreement, and a listing of counsel associated with that plaintiff.
`
`3.
`
`The Settlement Coordinators shall maintain an MDL Settlement List and submit an updated
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`2
`JOINT LITIGATION PLAN;16-MD-0274
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 11787 Filed 09/17/20 Page 3 of 7
`
`
`
`list every month to the Court in camera.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs that are placed on the MDL Settlement List will not be subject to any ongoing
`
`discovery or litigation obligations in this MDL.
`
`5. At any time, a Plaintiff may be removed from the Settlement List by notifying the Settlement
`
`Coordinators. Upon notification, the stay will no longer apply to the Plaintiff’s case and
`
`Plaintiff will be required to meet any applicable court-ordered deadlines by the stated deadline
`
`or within sixty-days, whichever is later.
`
`6. Any Plaintiff that has remained on the Settlement List for longer than one year will be ordered
`
`to show cause why his or her case should not be dismissed or removed from the Settlement
`
`List and return to the litigation as an active case. The Settlement Coordinators will be
`
`responsible for identifying the cases to which this applies in their monthly reports to the
`
`Court.
`
`II.
`
`Active Cases
`
`Rule on All Pending Motions Related to Wave One and Remand.
`The Wave I cases have been fully worked up. Certain Summary judgment and Daubert
`
`motions are pending. If litigation resumes, the parties request that Court resolve those motions and
`
`remand cases, as appropriate, to their transferor courts, which can address trial scheduling. There are
`
`nine remaining cases in Wave I that are not currently subject to settlement agreements.
`
`1. Set New Deadlines for Wave Two Cases.
`
`The Wave II cases remain in the workup process. Fact discovery was completed in many of the
`
`Wave II cases at the time the stay was entered, but certain treater and other depositions could not be
`
`completed at that time due to the pandemic. On May 19, 2020, the Court granted the Parties request
`
`for a 60-day extension on remaining Wave Two deadlines. ECF No. 10751. Then, on July 21, 2020
`
`(seven days before the close of Wave Two discovery), the Court stayed all deadlines. PTO 216, ECF
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`3
`JOINT LITIGATION PLAN;16-MD-0274
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 11787 Filed 09/17/20 Page 4 of 7
`
`
`
`No. 11293. Should the Court remove the stay, the parties respectfully request that they be allowed to
`
`submit a proposed timeline to complete fact and expert discovery and briefing in the Wave II cases so
`
`that those cases can be remanded, as appropriate, in 2021. There are sixteen remaining cases in
`
`Wave II that are not currently subject to settlement agreements.
`
`2. Set New Deadlines for Wave Three Cases.
`
`On May 26, 2020, the Court entered a scheduling order for the Wave III cases. Because most
`
`of the Wave III cases are subject to settlement agreements, the parties request that the Court dissolve
`
`Wave III. If substantial settlement progress has not occurred by the November 9th Case Management
`
`Conference, the parties will submit a litigation proposal that includes all unresolved cases, including
`
`any remaining Wave III cases.
`
`Should the Court remove the stay and decide to proceed with Wave III now, the parties
`
`respectfully request that they be allowed to submit a proposed modified timeline to workup the Wave
`
`III cases to account for the stay but so that those cases still can be remanded, as appropriate, in
`
`2021. At the time the request was made, plaintiffs selected Hawaii as their state and Monsanto
`
`selected Texas. Neither party objects to revisiting those decisions in light of the intervening events
`
`since the initial request.
`
`3. Gebeyehou v. Monsanto.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Position
`
`As Your Honor noted at the conference on August 27, 2020, one of the three bellwether cases
`
`– Gebeyehou v. Monsanto -- is not settled, nor has Monsanto responded to counsel’s request to
`
`discuss resolution. The Gebeyehou case should be set for trial as soon as practicable in light of
`
`COVID. The legal issues are fully briefed and, following ruling on those motions, the case is ready
`
`for trial.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`4
`JOINT LITIGATION PLAN;16-MD-0274
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 11787 Filed 09/17/20 Page 5 of 7
`
`
`
`Monsanto’s Position
`
`Monsanto has a pending motion for summary judgment in the Gebeyehou case on statute of
`
`limitations grounds and believes the case should be dismissed on that basis. Should the Court deny
`
`that motion, Monsanto does not object to an in-person trial before this Court as soon as circumstances
`
`allow. Monsanto objects to a virtual trial given the many complications of trying a case remotely.
`
`Monsanto also has agreed to a mediation in the Gebeyehou case, which will be scheduled shortly.
`
`
`III. November 9, 2020 Case Management Conference.
`
`The parties request the Court maintain the currently set November 9, 2020 Case Management
`
`Conference, during which time they will report on further settlement efforts and be prepared to
`
`discuss the status of the stay and a more detailed litigation plan.
`
`DATED: September 17, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /s/ Aimee Wagstaff
`Aimee Wagstaff
`Aimee.wagstaff@andruswagstaff.com
`ANDRUS WAGSTAFF, P.C.
`7171 West Alaska Drive
`Lakewood CO 80226
`Telephone: (303) 376-6360
`Facsimile: (303) 376-6361
`Robin Greenwald
`rgreenwald@weitzlux.com
`WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
`700 Broadway
`New York NY 10003
`Telephone: (212) 558-5500
`Facsimile: (212) 344-5461
`
`Michael Miller
`mmiller@millerfirmllc.com
`THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
`108 Railroad Ave
`Orange VA 22960
`Telephone: (540) 672 4224
`Facsimile: (540) 672-3055
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`5
`JOINT LITIGATION PLAN;16-MD-0274
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 11787 Filed 09/17/20 Page 6 of 7
`
`/s/ William Hoffman
`William Hoffman (pro hac vice)
`(william.hoffman@arnoldporter.com)
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`601 Massachusetts Ave NW,
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel: 202-942-6915
`Fax: 202-942-5999
`
`/s/ Brian L. Stekloff
`Brian L. Stekloff (pro hac vice)
`(bstekloff@wilkinsonwalsh.com)
`Rakesh Kilaru (pro hac vice)
`(rkilaru@wilkinsonwalsh.com)
`WILKINSON WALSH LLP
`2001 M St. NW
`10th Floor
`Washington, DC 20036
`Tel: 202-847-4030
`Fax: 202-847-4005
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`MONSANTO COMPANY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`6
`JOINT LITIGATION PLAN;16-MD-0274
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 11787 Filed 09/17/20 Page 7 of 7
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` I
`
` hereby certify that, on September 17, 2020, service of this document was accomplished pursuant
`to the Court’s electronic filing procedures by filing this document through the ECF system.
`
`
`
`/s/ Robin Greenwald
` Robin Greenwald
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`JOINT LITIGATION PLAN;16-MD-0274
`
`