Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12509 Filed 02/03/21 Page 1 of 83
`
`Elizabeth J. Cabraser (SBN 083151)
`Robert L. Lieff (SBN 037568)
`Steven E. Fineman (SBN 140335)
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
`BERNSTEIN, LLP
`275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111-3339
`Telephone: 415.956.1000
`ecabraser@lchb.com
`
`William M. Audet (SBN 117456)
`AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
`711 Van Ness, Suite 500
`San Francisco, CA 94102-3229
`Telephone: 415.568.2555
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
`(additional counsel listed below)
`
`James R. Dugan, II
`TerriAnne Benedetto
`THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC
`One Canal Place
`365 Canal Street, Suite 1000
`New Orleans, LA 70130
`Telephone: 504.648.0180
`
`Samuel Issacharoff
`40 Washington Square South
`Suite 411J
`New York, NY 10012
`Telephone: 212.998.6580
`
`Elizabeth A. Fegan
`FEGAN SCOTT LLC
`150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Fl.
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: 312.741.1019
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS
`LIABILITY LITIGATION
`___________________________________
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`
`Ramirez, et al. v. Monsanto Co.,
`Case No. 3:19-cv-02224
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2039772.8
`
`
`MDL NO. 2741
`
`Case No. 3:16-md-02741-VC
`
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
`APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS
`SETTLEMENT, APPOINTMENT OF
`INTERIM CLASS AND SUBCLASS
`COUNSEL, DIRECTION OF NOTICE UNDER
`FED. R. CIV P. 23(e), SCHEDULING OF A
`FAIRNESS HEARING, AND STAY OF THE
`FILING AND PROSECUTION OF ROUNDUP-
`RELATED ACTIONS BY SETTLEMENT
`CLASS MEMBERS
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`MDL NO. 2741, CASE NO. 3:16-MD-02741
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12509 Filed 02/03/21 Page 2 of 83
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
`SETTLEMENT BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY ...................................................................7
`A.
`The Settlement Class and Subclasses ......................................................................7
`B.
`Compensation Awards .............................................................................................8
`C.
`Diagnostic Accessibility Grant Program ...............................................................12
`D.
`Legal Services Program .........................................................................................16
`E.
`Labeling Change ....................................................................................................17
`F.
`Research Funding Program ....................................................................................17
`G.
`Advisory Science Panel .........................................................................................17
`H.
`Potential Extension of the Settlement ....................................................................18
`I.
`Limited Release (Except for Those Who Accept Compensation Awards) ............19
`J.
`Notice Plan .............................................................................................................20
`K.
`Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Incentive Awards ................................................22
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................23
`I.
`The Court will likely certify the class and subclasses at final approval. ...........................24
`A.
`The class and subclasses meet the requirements of Rule 23(a). ............................24
`1.
`The class and subclasses are sufficiently numerous. .................................24
`2.
`Roundup claims raise a cluster of common questions with
`resolution-driving common answers. .........................................................25
`The proposed class representatives’ claims are typical. ............................26
`The proposed class representatives and Class Counsel have and
`will adequately represent the class and subclasses. ...................................27
`The class and subclasses meet the predominance requirement of Rule
`23(b)(3). .................................................................................................................28
`Class certification for settlement purposes satisfies the superiority
`requirement. ...........................................................................................................33
`Alternatively, certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is also appropriate. .....................36
`The Court should appoint proposed Class Counsel and Subclass Counsel
`as Interim Settlement Class Counsel under Rule 23(g)(3). ....................................37
`The Court will likely find the Settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate. .........................38
`
`3.
`4.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`E.
`
`II.
`
`2039772.8
`
`
`- ii -
`
` MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`MDL NO. 2741, CASE NO. 3:16-MD-02741
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12509 Filed 02/03/21 Page 3 of 83
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`E.
`
`2039772.8
`
`
`Rule 23(e)(2)(A): Counsel and the class representatives have and will
`continue to zealously represent the class. ..............................................................38
`Rule 23(e)(2)(B): The Settlement is the product of more than 18 months of
`adversarial negotiation under the supervision of the Court-appointed
`mediator. ................................................................................................................40
`Rule 23(e)(2)(C): The Settlement provides guaranteed programmatic relief
`in exchange for a limited release and a short delay, and compensation to
`those who choose to accept it in exchange for a full release. ................................42
`The Settlement offers class benefits and compensation that are fair,
`1.
`adequate, and reasonable alternatives to the costs, risks, and delay
`of trial and appeal. ......................................................................................42
`Class members who are not diagnosed, or who do not accept a
`compensation award, give up relatively little. ...........................................44
`The litigation stay is a small concession on the part of class
`a.
`members, who by definition have not filed a claim or
`retained counsel to do so. ...............................................................44
`The release of medical monitoring claims is reasonable in
`light of the Settlement benefits. .....................................................45
`The release of punitive damages is reasonable. .............................48
`c.
`Class members are eligible for relief through straightforward
`processes. ...................................................................................................50
`Counsel will seek reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs that pose no
`obstacle to preliminary approval. ...............................................................50
`There are no side agreements relevant to preliminary approval. ...............51
`5.
`The Settlement treats all class members equitably relative to one another. ..........51
`The Settlement merits preliminary approval under this District’s
`Procedural Guidance. .............................................................................................53
`Guidance (1)(a) & (c): The Settlement class and released claims
`1.
`are consistent with the operative complaint. ..............................................53
`Guidance (1)(e): The Settlement compares favorably to potential
`litigation. ....................................................................................................53
`Guidance (1)(f): The allocation of the Settlement Fund is
`considered and reasonable. ........................................................................55
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`b.
`
`- iii -
`
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`MDL NO. 2741, CASE NO. 3:16-MD-02741
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12509 Filed 02/03/21 Page 4 of 83
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`4.
`
`5.
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`Guidance (1)(g): A substantial number of class members are
`expected to participate in the Settlement programs. ..................................55
`Guidance (1)(h) & (8): The Settlement is non-reversionary. .....................56
`Guidance (6): Attorneys’ fees, when requested, will meet all
`federal and local requirements. ..................................................................57
`Guidance (7): The requested incentive awards are reasonable and
`subject to Court approval. ..........................................................................57
`Guidance (9): The Settlement provides a reasonable time for class
`members to exercise their rights. ...............................................................58
`The notice plan provides the best practical notice. ............................................................58
`The notice plan was specifically designed to reach those exposed to
`A.
`Roundup who have not yet developed NHL, as well as those who have. .............59
`The concerns articulated in Amchem are not present here. ....................................61
`Guidance (2): The Administrators and Notice Agents were selected based
`on capabilities and experience with large, complex settlements. ..........................63
`The proposed Settlement addresses the four concerns the Court raised regarding
`the prior, withdrawn settlement. ........................................................................................64
`The Court should stay class members from filing or prosecuting new Roundup
`Lawsuits and Related Party Lawsuits. ...............................................................................66
`Requested Timetable ..........................................................................................................69
`VI.
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................70
`
`
`
`2039772.8
`
`
`- iv -
`
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`MDL NO. 2741, CASE NO. 3:16-MD-02741
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12509 Filed 02/03/21 Page 5 of 83
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Cases
`Allen v. Monsanto Co.,
`No. 13-0418, 2013 WL 6153150 (W.V. Nov. 22, 2013) .......................................................... 47
`Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor,
`521 U.S. 591 (1997) ........................................................................................................... passim
`Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds,
`568 U.S. 455 (2013) ............................................................................................................ 25, 34
`Betts v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd.,
`659 F.2d 1000 (9th Cir. 1981) .................................................................................................. 24
`BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore,
`517 U.S. 559 (1996) ............................................................................................................ 32, 48
`Buchanan v. Tata Consultancy Servs., Ltd.,
`No. 15-1696, 2017 WL 6611653 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2017) .................................................... 32
`Carson v. Monsanto Co.,
`No. 17-237, 2020 WL 7497385 (S.D. Ga., Dec. 21, 2020) ...................................................... 36
`Celano v. Marriott Int’l, Inc.,
`242 F.R.D. 544 (N.D. Cal. 2007) .............................................................................................. 24
`Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec.,
`361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................................... 58
`Cote v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.,
`No. 19-14074, 2021 WL 162022 (11th Cir. Jan 19, 2021) ....................................................... 49
`Cotter v. Lyft, Inc.,
`No. 13-4065, Doc. 256 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2016) ................................................................ 66, 68
`Crawford v. Honig,
`37 F.3d 485 (9th Cir. 1994) ...................................................................................................... 36
`Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................... 26
`Elsea v. U.S. Eng’g Co.,
`No. 1016-15976 (Mo. Cir. 2018) .............................................................................................. 47
`Flores v. Dart Container Corp.,
`No. 19-83, 2021 WL 107239 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2021) ........................................................... 29
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
`150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................ 25, 29, 66, 68
`
`2039772.8
`
`
`- v -
`
` MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`MDL NO. 2741, CASE NO. 3:16-MD-02741
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12509 Filed 02/03/21 Page 6 of 83
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`Hardeman v. Monsanto Co.,
`Nos. 19-16636, 19-16708 (9th Cir.) ......................................................................................... 45
`Hardeman v. Monsanto Co.,
`No. 3:16-cv-00525 (N.D. Cal.) ................................................................................................. 45
`Hardeman v. Monsanto,
`No. 19-16636 (9th Cir.) ............................................................................................................ 50
`Hefler v. Wells Fargo & Co.,
`No. 16-05479, 2018 WL 6619983 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2018), aff'd,
`802 F. App'x 285 (9th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................................. 51
`In re Actos Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`274 F. Supp. 3d 485 (W.D. La. 2017) ...................................................................................... 57
`In re Am. Int’l Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`689 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................................... 31
`In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................... 57
`In re Citric Acid Antitrust Litig.,
`145 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (N.D. Cal. 2001) .................................................................................... 55
`In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig.,
`659 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1981) .................................................................................................. 68
`In re Deepwater Horizon,
`739 F.3d 790 (5th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................ 2, 32
`In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexenfluramine) Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`369 F.3d 293 (3d Cir. 2004) ....................................................................................................... 2
`In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`No. 1203, 2000 WL 1222042 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2000) ................................................... passim
`In re Diet Drugs,
`282 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2002) ..................................................................................................... 67
`In re High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 11-2509, 2015 WL 5158730 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2015) ..................................................... 53
`In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litig.,
`926 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 2019) ........................................................................................ 28, 29, 30
`In re Inter-Op Hip Prosthesis Liability Litigation,
`204 F.R.D. 330 (N.D. Ohio 2001) ...................................................................................... 35, 47
`
`2039772.8
`
`
`- vi -
`
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`MDL NO. 2741, CASE NO. 3:16-MD-02741
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12509 Filed 02/03/21 Page 7 of 83
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`In re Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n Student-Athlete Concussion Injury Litig.,
`332 F.R.D. 202 (N.D. Ill. 2019), aff’d,
`No. 19-2638, 2019 WL 8058082 (7th Cir. Oct. 25, 2019) ..................................... 32, 37, 46, 47
`In re Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n Student-Athlete Concussion Injury Litig.,
`No. 13-9116, 2016 WL 3854603 (N.D. Ill. July 15, 2016) ...................................................... 47
`In re Nat’l Football League Players Concussion Injury Litig.,
`301 F.R.D. 191 (E.D. Pa. 2014) ................................................................................................ 66
`In re Nat’l Football League Players Concussion Injury Litig.,
`307 F.R.D. 351 (E.D. Pa. 2015) ................................................................................................ 47
`In re Nat’l Football League Players Concussion Injury Litig.,
`821 F.3d 410 (3d Cir. 2016) .............................................................................................. passim
`In re Oil Spill by Oil Rig Deepwater Horizon,
`295 F.R.D. 112 (E.D. La. 2013) ......................................................................................... 26, 48
`In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig.,
`779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................... 53
`In re Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merch. Disc. Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 05-1720, 2019 WL 359981 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2019) ....................................................... 38
`In re Roundup Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`214 F. Supp. 3d 1346 (J.P.M.L. 2016) ...................................................................................... 26
`In re Tyco Int’l, Ltd.,
`535 F. Supp. 2d 249 (D.N.H. 2007) .......................................................................................... 57
`In re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`No. 03-0283, 2005 WL 3096079 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2005),
`vacated in part on other grounds, 496 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2007) .............................................. 51
`In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`869 F. Supp. 2d 719 (E.D. La. 2012) ........................................................................................ 66
`In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Prac., & Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`MDL No. 2672, 2017 WL 2212783 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2017) ............................................... 48
`In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Prac., & Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`MDL No. 2672, 2017 WL 672727 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2017) ................................................. 41
`In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, and Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`229 F. Supp. 3d 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .............................................................................. 66, 68
`In re Volkswagen and Audi Warranty Extension Litig.,
`273 F.R.D. 349 (D. Mass. 2011) ............................................................................................... 33
`
`2039772.8
`
`
`- vii -
`
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`MDL NO. 2741, CASE NO. 3:16-MD-02741
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12509 Filed 02/03/21 Page 8 of 83
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig.,
`391 F.3d 516 (3d Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................................... 31
`In re Wells Fargo & Co. Shareholder Deriv. Litig.,
`No. 16-5541, 2020 WL 1786159 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2020) ...................................................... 52
`Jabbari v. Farmer,
`965 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................ 29, 31
`Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
`765 F.3d. 1161 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................. 25
`Johnson v. Monsanto Co. et al.,
`No. GC16550128 (Cal. Super.) ................................................................................................ 50
`Johnson v. Monsanto Co.,
`52 Cal. App. 5th 434 (2020), pet. for rev. denied (Cal. Oct. 21, 2020) .............................. 45, 50
`Juris v. Inamed Corp.,
`685 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 63
`Levya v. Medline Indus. Inc.,
`716 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................... 32
`Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co.,
`339 U.S. 306 (1950) .................................................................................................................. 58
`Nitsch v. DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc.,
`No. 14-4062, 2017 WL 2423161 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2017) ...................................................... 53
`O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`No. 13-03826, 2019 WL 1437101 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2019) ................................................. 38
`Palmer v. Stassinos,
`233 F.R.D. 546 (N.D. Cal. 2006) .............................................................................................. 24
`Penn. Bureau of Corr. v. U.S. Marshals Serv.,
`474 U.S. 34 (1985) .................................................................................................................... 67
`Pilliod v. Monsanto Co.,
`No. A158228 (Cal. App.) .................................................................................................... 45, 50
`Pilliod v. Monsanto Co.,
`No. RG17862702 (Cal. Super.) ................................................................................................ 50
`Prantil v. Arkema,
`No. 19-20723, 2021 WL 222722 (5th Cir. Jan. 22, 2021) ............................................ 32, 33, 37
`Radcliffe v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc.,
`715 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................. 27
`
`2039772.8
`
`
`- viii -
`
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`MDL NO. 2741, CASE NO. 3:16-MD-02741
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12509 Filed 02/03/21 Page 9 of 83
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`Richie v. Blue Shield of Cal.,
`No. 13-2693, 2014 WL 6982943 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2014) ...................................................... 24
`Rodriguez v. West Pub’g Corp.,
`563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir 2009) ............................................................................................... 48, 52
`Sandpiper Vill. Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. La.-Pac. Corp.,
`428 F.3d 831 (9th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................... 68
`State Farm Ins. Co. v. Campbell,
`538 U.S. 408 (2003) .................................................................................................................. 48
`Staton v. Boeing Co.,
`327 F.3d 938 (2003) ............................................................................................................ 27, 38
`Sullivan v. DB Inv., Inc.,
`667 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2011) ..................................................................................................... 29
`Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc.,
`835 F. 3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................. 25
`Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo,
`136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) ........................................................................................................ 28, 29
`United States v. N.Y. Tel. Co.,
`434 U.S. 159 (1977) .................................................................................................................. 67
`Uppal v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.,
`No. 14-2629, 2015 WL 10890652 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2015) ........................................... 66, 68
`Vargas v. Ford Motor Co.,
`No. 12-8388, 2020 WL 1164066 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2020) ...................................................... 52
`Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.,
`290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................. 57
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
`564 U.S. 338 (2011) ............................................................................................................ 25, 37
`Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC,
`617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................ 26, 33
`Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc.,
`No. 10-1668, 2017 WL 1113293 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2017) ................................................... 48
`Zinser v. Accufix Res. Inst., Inc.,
`253 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 37
`
`
`
`
`2039772.8
`
`
`- ix -
`
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`MDL NO. 2741, CASE NO. 3:16-MD-02741
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12509 Filed 02/03/21 Page 10 of 83
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`Statutes
`28 U.S.C. § 1651 ........................................................................................................................... 66
`28 U.S.C. § 2283 ........................................................................................................................... 68
`Rules
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) ................................................................................................................. 24
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) ................................................................................................................. 25
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) ................................................................................................................. 27
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)..................................................................................................... 32, 36, 37
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(A) ........................................................................................................... 35
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(B) ........................................................................................................... 35
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(C) ........................................................................................................... 35
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(D) ........................................................................................................... 36
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) ..................................................................................................... 23, 58
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1) ................................................................................................................. 23
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B) ....................................................................................................... 7, 23
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) ........................................................................................................... 24, 38
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(B) ........................................................................................................... 40
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(5) ................................................................................................................. 23
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), 2003 Ad. Comm. Notes ............................................................................. 51
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A) ........................................................................................................... 37
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3)................................................................................................................. 37
`Treatises
`William B. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions (5th ed. 2018) .............................................. 31
`Other Authorities
`Press Release, Bayer AG, Bayer announces agreements to resolve major legacy Monsanto
`litigation (June 24, 2020) .......................................................................................................... 42
`
`
`
`
`
`2039772.8
`
`
`- x -
`
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`MDL NO. 2741, CASE NO. 3:16-MD-02741
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12509 Filed 02/03/21 Page 11 of 83
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`TO ALL THE PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on such date and time as the Court may set, in Courtroom
`
`4 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, located at 450
`
`Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, unless the Court orders proceedings be held by
`
`telephone or videoconference, proposed Class Counsel, on behalf of a proposed Settlement class,
`
`will and hereby do move the Court for an order (1) granting preliminary approval of the Class
`
`Action Settlement and Settlement Agreement; (2) appointing Interim Class Counsel and Subclass
`
`Counsel; (3) approving the dissemination of Settlement class notice; (4) Scheduling a Fairness
`
`Hearing; and (5) staying the filing and prosecution of Roundup-related actions by Settlement
`
`class members, pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b), 23(c)(2)(B), and 23(e) of the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure.
`
`
`
`
`
`2039772.8
`
`
`- xi -
`
` MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`MDL NO. 2741, CASE NO. 3:16-MD-02741
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12509 Filed 02/03/21 Page 12 of 83
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Last July, in PTO 214, this Court expressed its skepticism about the “propriety and
`
`fairness” of a proposed settlement and informed the parties that it was “tentatively inclined to
`
`deny” preliminary approval. MDL Doc. 11182, at 3. The Court invited the parties to refashion a
`
`“Plan B” that avoided the pitfalls of “Plan A.” In response, the parties withdrew the proposed
`
`settlement and started anew. After more than six months of difficult negotiations, we are able to
`
`offer an alternative proposed resolution.
`
`Given the history of this litigation, it is best to start off immediately with how the parties
`
`have responded to the Court’s concerns. The June proposed settlement was fundamentally
`
`organized around an issue determination about the relation between Roundup and NHL. The
`
`June settlement created a Science Panel to offer a binding assessment of the central causation
`
`question at the heart of the litigation. In turn, an issues class certification would have given the
`
`panel determination preclusive effect in all future tort cases brought by class members. There
`
`was a novel system for “interim” payments and other assistance for the class while the panel did
`
`its work. But the operational heart of the class was the issue determination that, it was hoped,
`
`would streamline all subsequent cases.
`
`This Court gave extensive guidance to the parties on the legal difficulties of binding this
`
`proposed class to the outcome of a single factual determination, even with an individual ability to
`
`opt out. Because so many people have had exposure to Roundup and have not had any indication
`
`of NHL, the class was not self-identifying (unlike, e.g., NFL players, as the Court noted). Yet
`
`because the settlement would bind a large class into the future and potentially compromise the
`
`ability to sue Monsanto (if the Science Panel’s determination were in Monsanto’s favor), there
`
`would be great pressure upon the class notice. The Court stated it was “dubious” that current
`
`2039772.8
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`MDL NO. 2741, CASE NO. 3:16-MD-02741
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12509 Filed 02/03/21 Page 13 of 83
`
`
`
`notice directed at migrant farmworkers or individuals working in a small gardening business who
`
`did not have NHL would meaningfully alert them that, unless they opted out immediately, they
`
`could face the consequences of issue preclusion in a subsequent suit against Monsanto if and
`
`when they did develop NHL in the future.
`
`The present agreement has been rebuilt from the studs on up. First, and foremost, the
`
`present agreement is based on conventional notions of claims resolution rather than issue
`
`preclusive determinations. The new Settlement contains a straightforward compensation fund to
`
`make offers to class members who have or develop NHL, together with a broad program of
`
`diagnostic assistance for NHL risk and other programmatic benefits.