Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12785 Filed 03/19/21 Page 1 of 6
`Case 3:16-md-02741—VC Document 12785 Filed 03/19/21 Page 1 of 6
`
`WILKINSON STEKLOFF LLP
`
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`
`Michael X. Imbroscio (pro hac vice)
`(mimbroscio@cov.com)
`One City Center
`850 10th St. NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel: 202-662—6000
`
`Brian L. Stekloff (pro hac vice)
`(bsteklofl'@willdnsonsteklof£com)
`Rakesh Kilanl (pro hac vice)
`(Ikilaru@wilkinsonstekloff.com)
`2001 M St. NW
`10‘” Floor
`
`Washington, DC 20036
`Tel:
`202-847-4030
`
`Fax:
`
`202—847-4005
`
`HOLLINGSWORTH LLP
`
`Eric G. Lasker (pro hac vice)
`(elasker@hollingsworthllp.com)
`1350 I St. NW
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: 202-898-5843
`
`Fax: 202-682-1639
`
`Attorneysfor Defendant
`MONSANTO COMPANY
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS
`LIABILITY LITIGATION
`
`MDL No. 2741
`
`Case No.: 3: 16—md-0274l—VC
`
`Seidl v. Monsanto Co., 3:17-cv-00519—VC
`
`Cervantes v. Monsanto Co., 3: 19-cv—03015-VC
`
`Karman v. Monsanto Co., 3:19—cv-01183-VC
`Pecorelli v. Monsanto Co., 3: 16-cv-06936-VC
`Peterson v. Monsanto Co., 3: 18-cv—07271-VC
`
`DEFENDANT MONSANTO
`COMPANY’S NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGNIENT ON
`NON'CAUSATION GROUNDS
`
`Rehak v. Monsanto Co._, 3:19—cv—01719-VC
`Schafer v. Monsanto Ca, 3: l9-cv-02169
`
`Healing date: May 28, 2021
`Time:
`
`MONSANTO’S MOTION FOR SUMNIARY JUDGMENT ON NON—CAUSATION GROUNDS
`3: l6-md-02741-VC
`
`\OOONO‘UI-k
`
`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 12785 Filed 03/19/21 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT beginning on May 28, 2021, in Courtroom 4 of the United
`States District Court, Northern District of California, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San
`Francisco, CA 94102, or as ordered by the Court, Defendant Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”)
`will present its Motion for Summary Judgment. Monsanto seeks an order granting summary
`judgment for Monsanto.
`
`DATED: March 19, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /s/ Michael X. Imbroscio
`
`
`
`Michael X. Imbroscio (pro hac vice)
`(mimbroscio@cov.com)
`One City Center
`850 10th St. NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel: 202-62-6000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`MONSANTO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON NON-CAUSATION GROUNDS
`3:16-md-02741-VC
`
`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 12785 Filed 03/19/21 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`
`Monsanto hereby moves for summary judgment on non-causation grounds in the above-
`captioned cases. Consistent with the Court’s repeated instructions not to re-litigate issues
`previously ruled upon by the Court, but in order to fully preserve the appellate record, Monsanto
`hereby incorporates the following pleadings that were filed on the MDL docket:
`• Monsanto’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Non-Causation Grounds (ECF
`#2419)
`• Monsanto’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on Non-Causation
`Grounds (ECF #2634)
`Monsanto moves for summary judgment on the following grounds and incorporates the
`full record raised in those pleadings:
`• Plaintiffs’ warning-based claims are expressly preempted
`• Plaintiffs’ claims are preempted under impossibility preemption
`• Plaintiffs’ warning claims should be dismissed because the alleged cancer risks were
`not known or knowable by the scientific community at the time of distribution
`• Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a right to seek punitive damages in this case.1
`With respect to Monsanto’s motion on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ claims are both
`expressly preempted and preempted under impossibility preemption, Monsanto supplements the
`record to include further evidence in support of its motion that took place subsequent to the
`Court’s ruling. First, in April 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued its
`proposed interim decision on the re-registration of glyphosate. See Declaration of Michael
`Imbroscio (March 18, 2021) (“Imbroscio Decl.”), Ex. 1, EPA, Glyphosate: Proposed Interim
`Registration Review Decision. Second, in August 2019, EPA issued the attached letter and
`
`
`1 Like California law, North Carolina law requires a showing of aggravating factors such as malice
`or oppression before a plaintiff can recover punitive damages. See, e.g., Bartlett Milling Co., L.P.
`v. Walnut Grove Auction and Realty Co., Inc., 665 S.E.2d 478, 487, 192 N.C.App. 74, 84
`(N.C.App.,2008). Plaintiff Randall Seidl cannot meet this burden in this case for the reasons
`Monsanto has identified in prior briefing. See, e.g., ECF No. 2419 at 17-21. Illinois law regarding
`punitive damages is separately addressed in Monsanto’s Motion for Summary Judgment on
`Illinois Law Grounds.
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`MONSANTO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON NON-CAUSATION GROUNDS
`3:16-md-02741-VC
`
`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 12785 Filed 03/19/21 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`associated materials. See Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 2, Letter from Michael Goodis to Registrant,
`Aug. 7, 2019; Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 3, EPA, News Release from Headquarters, “EPA Takes
`Action to Provide Accurate Risk Information to Consumers, Stop False Labeling on Products,”
`Aug. 8, 2019. Third, in December 2019, the United States government filed an amicus brief
`urging that claims presented by a different plaintiff in this multidistrict litigation be rejected as
`preempted by federal law. See Ex. 4, Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting
`Appellant, Monsanto Co. v. Hardeman, No. 19-16636 (9th Cir. Dec. 20, 2019). Fourth, in
`January 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) released its interim registration
`review decision for glyphosate, which is final in terms of human health risk assessment. See
`Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 5, EPA, Glyphosate: Interim Registration Review Decision Case No. 0178
`(Jan. 2020). In the decision, EPA reaffirmed that “there are no risks to human health from the
`current registered uses of glyphosate and that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to
`humans.” Along with its decision for glyphosate, EPA released responses from EPA’s Pesticide
`Re-evaluation Division (PRD) to public comments on the decision. See Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 6,
`EPA, Response from PRD to Comments on the Glyphosate Proposed Interim Decision (Jan. 16,
`2020).
`By incorporating by reference its prior filings, Monsanto is in no way waiving any of the
`arguments raised therein.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`MONSANTO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON NON-CAUSATION GROUNDS
`3:16-md-02741-VC
`
`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 12785 Filed 03/19/21 Page 5 of 6
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 19, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael X. Imbroscio
`Michael X. Imbroscio (pro hac vice)
`(mimbroscio@cov.com)
`One City Center
`850 10th St. NW
`Washington, DC 20001
` Tel: 202-662-6000
`
`
`Attorney for Defendant Monsanto Company
`
`- 5 -
`
`MONSANTO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON NON-CAUSATION GROUNDS
`3:16-md-02741-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12785 Filed 03/19/21 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 19th day of March, 2021, a copy of the foregoing was
`filed with the Clerk of the Court through the CM/ECF system which sent notice of the filing to
`all appearing parties of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael X. Imbroscio
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`MONSANTO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON NON-CAUSATION GROUNDS
`3:16-md-02741-VC
`
`
`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
`
`