Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12700 Filed 03/05/21 Page 1 of 5
`
`Arthur H. Bryant (SBN 208365)
`BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
`1999 Harrison Street, Suite 660
`Oakland, CA 94612
`Tel.: (510) 272-8000
`Fax: (510) 436-0291
`E-mail: abryant@baileyglasser.com
`
`Benjamin L. Bailey (admitted pro hac)
`BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
`209 Capitol Street
`Charleston, WV 25301
`Tel: (304) 345-6555
`Fax: (304) 342-1110
`E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com
`
`Counsel for Amici Curiae
`
`Joshua I. Hammack (admitted pro hac)
`BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
`1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
`Washington, DC 20007
`Tel.: (202) 548-7798
`Fax: (202) 463-2103
`E-mail: jhammack@baileyglasser.com
`
`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. 3:16-md-02741-VC
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`FOR LEAVE TO FILE OPPOSITION
`OF 93 LAW FIRMS AND 167 LAWYERS
`AS AMICI CURIAE TO 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
`
`The Honorable Vince Chhabria
`Date:
` March 31, 2021
`Time: 10:00 am
`Courtroom 4 – 17th Floor
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO FILE OPPOSITION AMICI CURIAE
`MDL NO. 2741, CASE NO. 3:16-md-02741
`
`

`

` 
`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12700 Filed 03/05/21 Page 2 of 5
`
` 
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT 93 law firms and 167 lawyers collectively move the
`
`Court for leave to file a brief as amici curiae in opposition to the Motion for Preliminary
`
`Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement and related relief in this case. A copy of the
`
`proposed amici curiae brief is attached to this motion, as is a proposed order. A complete list of
`
`law firms seeking to participate as amici curiae is attached as Exhibit A to the proposed brief. A
`
`complete list of lawyers seeking to participate as amici curiae is attached as Exhibit B to the
`
`proposed brief. Counsel respectfully requests the opportunity to participate in oral argument
`
`regarding the proposed settlement’s propriety.
`
`
`
`In the absence of specific rules governing amicus curiae appearances at the district court
`
`level, district courts may look to the rules governing amicus curiae participation in appellate
`
`courts. See Baker v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Company, No. 20-cv-05467-LB, 2021 WL 24841,
`
`at *2 n.7 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2021) (citing Levin Richmond Terminal Corp. v. City of Richmond,
`
`No. 20-CV-01609-YGR, 2020 WL 5074263, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2020)); Ass’n of Am.
`
`Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Brown, No. 2:16-cv-02441-MCE-EFB, 2017 WL 4351766, at *2
`
`(E.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2017) (granting motion for leave to file as amicus curiae pursuant to Federal
`
`Rule of Appellate Procedure 29).
`
`District courts have wide discretion to grant leave to participate as amici curiae. See, e.g.,
`
`Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v.
`
`Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). As this Court has recognized, “[d]istrict courts frequently
`
`welcome amicus briefs from non-parties concerning legal issues that have potential ramifications
`
`beyond the parties directly involved.” NGV Gaming, Ltd. v. Upstream Point Molate, LLC, 355 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 1061, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2005). Here, the views of the proposed amici curiae are likely to
`
`1
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO FILE OPPOSITION AMICI CURIAE
`MDL NO. 2741, CASE NO. 3:16-md-02741
`
`

`

` 
`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12700 Filed 03/05/21 Page 3 of 5
`
` 
`
`assist the Court because this group of law firms and lawyers, and their respective constituent
`
`clients, have an overriding and abiding interest in the issues presented. See, e.g., Funbus Sys.,
`
`Inc. v. State of Cal. Pub. Utilities Comm’n., 801 F.2d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 1986) (describing the
`
`“classic role” of amici curiae as “assisting in a case of general public interest”). In particular,
`
`proposed amici—all of whom are independent of the parties to this action—have extensive and
`
`direct experience with the subjects addressed in their amici curiae brief and an overriding
`
`interest in promoting access to our civil justice system for all individuals injured as a result of
`
`exposure to dangerous, cancer-causing chemicals.
`
`In amici’s view, the proposed settlement seriously endangers access to justice for
`
`millions of people in the proposed class, would prevent Monsanto’s victims from holding it
`
`accountable, and would reward Monsanto in numerous respects. While there are many problems
`
`with the proposed class action settlement, including that most of the proposed class members
`
`cannot adequately be notified of its terms, our amici curiae brief, short and to the point, focuses
`
`on three of them: (1) the wholesale release of punitive damages, (2) the four-year stay on judicial
`
`proceedings, and (3) the secret science panel. Each of these violates core principles of America’s
`
`system of justice—and requires that preliminary approval of the proposed settlement be denied.
`
`
`
`There is, moreover, an additional reason our brief should be considered and the proposed
`
`settlement should be rejected. If the proposed class action settlement is approved, there is a very
`
`real risk that corporations injuring people nationwide will try to use the approach taken in this
`
`settlement as a template for future mass tort and personal injury cases, including toxic tort,
`
`medical device, pharmaceutical, and product liability cases. Injury victims’ right to seek and
`
`obtain justice in our nation’s courts could be replaced by private deals worked out between
`
`2
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO FILE OPPOSITION AMICI CURIAE
`MDL NO. 2741, CASE NO. 3:16-md-02741
`
`

`

` 
`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12700 Filed 03/05/21 Page 4 of 5
`
` 
`
`corporate wrongdoers and their selected class counsel. If America’s civil justice system is to be a
`
`system of justice, that cannot be how it works.
`
`For these reasons, amici respectfully request this Court’s leave to submit the attached
`
`brief amici curiae and to participate in any oral argument over the proposed settlement’s
`
`propriety.
`
`
`Dated: March 5, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ s/ Arthur H. Bryant
`Arthur H. Bryant (SBN 208365)
`BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
`1999 Harrison Street, Suite 660
`Oakland, CA 94612
`Tel.: (510) 272-8000
`Fax: (510) 436-0291
`E-mail: abryant@baileyglasser.com
`
`Benjamin L. Bailey (admitted pro hac)
`BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
`209 Capitol Street
`Charleston, WV 25301
`Tel: (304) 345-6555
`Fax: (304) 342-1110
`E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com
`
`Joshua I. Hammack (admitted pro hac)
`BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
`1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
`Washington, DC 20007
`Tel.: (202) 548-7798
`Fax: (202) 463-2103
`E-mail: jhammack@baileyglasser.com
`
`Counsel for Amici Curiae
`
`3
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO FILE OPPOSITION AMICI CURIAE
`MDL NO. 2741, CASE NO. 3:16-md-02741
`
`

`

` 
`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12700 Filed 03/05/21 Page 5 of 5
`
` 
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` I
`
` hereby certify that on March 5, 2021, the foregoing was electronically filed with the
`Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to counsel
`of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`Dated: March 5, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` /s/ Arthur H. Bryant
`Arthur H. Bryant (SBN 208365)
`
`4
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO FILE OPPOSITION AMICI CURIAE
`MDL NO. 2741, CASE NO. 3:16-md-02741
`
`