throbber
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 12789 Filed 03/19/21 Page 1 of 26
`
`WILKINSON STEKLOFF LLP
`Brian L. Stekloff (pro hac vice)
`(bstekloff@wilkinsonstekloff.com)
`Rakesh Kilaru (pro hac vice)
`(rkilaru@wilkinsonstekloff.com)
`2001 M St. NW
`10th 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
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`MONSANTO COMPANY
`
` 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS
`LIABILITY LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`Rehak v. Monsanto Co., 3:19-cv-01719-VC
`Schafer v. Monsanto Co., 3:19-cv-02169
`Seidl v. Monsanto Co., 3:17-cv-00519-VC
`
`
`MDL No. 2741
`
`Case No.: 3:16-md-02741-VC
`
`
`DEFENDANT MONSANTO
`COMPANY’S NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF
`PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS BARRY
`BOYD, LAUREN PINTER-
`BROWN, AND RON SCHIFF ON
`RULE 702 GROUNDS
`
`Hearing date: May 28, 2021
`Time:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`MONSANTO’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE SPECIFIC CAUSATION EXPERT TESTIMONY IN WAVE TWO
`CASES
`3:16-MD-02741-VC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12789 Filed 03/19/21 Page 2 of 26
`
`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 to Exclude Testimony of Barry Boyd, Lauren Pinter-Brown, and Ron Schiff. Monsanto seeks
`an order excluding opinion of this witness under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell
`Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
`
`DATED: March 19, 2021
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/s/ Michael X. Imbroscio
`Michael X. Imbroscio (pro hac vice)
`(mimbroscio@cov.com)
`Covington & Burling LLP
`One City Center
`850 10th St. NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel: 202-62-6000
`
`- ii -
`MONSANTO’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE SPECIFIC CAUSATION EXPERT TESTIMONY IN WAVE TWO
`CASES
`3:16-MD-02741-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12789 Filed 03/19/21 Page 3 of 26
`
`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
`
`II.
`III.
`
`II.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`III.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 2
`Wave Two Plaintiffs Have Disclosed a Handful of Specific Causation Experts for
`I.
`Whom the Court Has Not Previously Ruled. ........................................................................... 2
`The Wave Two Plaintiffs All Had Risk Factors Associated with NHL. ................................. 3
`Plaintiffs’ Experts All Purport to Use a Differential “Etiology” in Forming Their
`Specific Causation Opinions. ................................................................................................... 6
`LEGAL STANDARD .......................................................................................................................... 7
`ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................................... 8
`Dr. Schiff’s Testimony Reveals That the Experts’ “Differential Etiology”
`I.
`Methodology Is Results Driven and Made for Litigation. ....................................................... 8
`Plaintiffs’ Experts Failed to Properly Assess Potential Alternative Causes of
`Plaintiffs’ NHL. ....................................................................................................................... 9
`Dr. Schiff Admits He Cannot Rule Out or Weigh Risk Factors, and
`A.
`Always Concludes Roundup was a Substantial Cause. ............................................. 10
`Dr. Pinter-Brown Likewise Automatically Includes Roundup as a
`Substantial Cause and Does Not Weigh or Eliminate Other Risk Factors. ............... 15
`Dr. Boyd Also Does Not Meaningfully Consider Alternative Causes, and
`His Testimony Regarding His Methodology Conflicts with Dr. Schiff’s. ................. 17
`Plaintiffs’ Experts Have Not Reliably Ruled Out Unknown Causes of Plaintiffs
`NHL and Instead Always Point to Roundup. ......................................................................... 18
`IV. Monsanto Preserves Its Arguments That Plaintiffs’ Experts Ruled in Roundup as
`a Cause of Each Plaintiff’s NHL Based on Inadequate and Flawed Studies. ........................ 19
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`MONSANTO’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE SPECIFIC CAUSATION EXPERT TESTIMONY IN WAVE TWO
`CASES
`3:16-MD-02741-VC
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12789 Filed 03/19/21 Page 4 of 26
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`In re Aredia & Zometa Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`483 F. App’x 182 (6th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 7
`
`Claar v. Burlington N. R.R. Co.,
`29 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 1994) .......................................................................................................... 10
`
`Clausen v. M/V New Carissa,
`339 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2003) .............................................................................................. 6, 9, 10
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993) ................................................................................................... 7, 12, 20
`
`Hayes v. Tractor Supply Co.,
`170 N.C. App. 405, 612 S.E.2d 399 (2005) ................................................................................... 8
`
`In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Mktg., Sales Practices & Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`892 F.3d 624 (4th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................... 8, 17
`
`In re Mirena Ius Levonorgestrel-Related Products Liability Litigation (No. II),
`341 F.Supp.3d 213, 241 (S.D.N.Y., 2018) ................................................................................... 13
`
`Poust v. Huntleigh Healthcare,
`998 F. Supp. 478 (D.N.J. 1998) ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`In re Roundup Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`358 F. Supp. 3d 956, 957 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ............................................................................. 8, 18
`
`Solis v. BASF Corp.,
`979 N.E.2d 419, 365 Ill.Dec. 815 (Ill. App. 1 Dist., 2012) ............................................................ 8
`
`Wehmeier v. UNR Indus., Inc.,
`213 Ill. App. 3d 6, 572 N.E.2d 320 (1991) .................................................................................... 8
`
`Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB,
`178 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................... 6, 10
`
`Yates v. Ford Motor Co.,
`No. 5:12-CV-752-FL, 2015 WL 3463559 (E.D.N.C. May 30, 2015) ........................................... 8
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 702 ..................................................................................................... passim
`
`- ii -
`
`MONSANTO’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE SPECIFIC CAUSATION EXPERT TESTIMONY IN WAVE TWO
`CASES
`3:16-MD-02741-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12789 Filed 03/19/21 Page 5 of 26
`
`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
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Wave 2 Plaintiffs have designated an array of new specific causation experts that do not
`meet the standards of Rule 702 this Court imposed in Pre-Trial Order 85 (“PTO 85”). While
`purporting to rely on the same differential etiology/diagnosis methodology the Court previously
`permitted, these experts in fact fall woefully short of the first round of experts, which this Court
`bluntly described to have “barely inched over the line” in opining that Roundup®-branded products
`(“Roundup”) specifically caused the plaintiffs’ non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). In striking
`manner, each of these new experts is nakedly outcome-driven. To be sure, they continue to “rule in”
`Roundup based on the same flawed studies the general causation experts rely on without accounting
`for the Plaintiffs’ specific NHL sub-types. But even setting that deficiency aside, they do their real
`methodological violence in their consideration of other potential risk factors. In their unwavering
`adherence to their conclusion that Roundup is always to blame, they offer no coherent, defensible
`principle undergirding their specific causation opinions, ultimately acknowledging that they cannot
`rule out many significant risk factors and instead simply professing no obligation to do so.
`The mere invocation of the phrase “differential etiology” or “differential diagnosis” cannot
`sanitize what is otherwise an outcome-driven conclusion devoid of any reliable scientific basis. These
`experts repeatedly failed to reliably account for known risk factors for NHL that other plaintiffs’
`experts admit are well-accepted risk factors, and they at the same time casually ignore the potential
`that unknown factors, which account for most NHL cases, might explain the plaintiff’s NHL.
`And unlike the experts the Court previously addressed, these experts fully admit they have no
`reliable scientific method to weigh causes against one another—the very subject on which their
`testimony will purportedly assist a jury under Rule 702. The bottom line for these witnesses is that
`Roundup will always be the cause of every plaintiff’s NHL as long as the plaintiff was exposed to
`some amount of Roundup at some point in their life—regardless of the plaintiff’s individual medical
`history and risk factors, regardless of the fact that the cause of NHL cannot be determined in the vast
`majority of cases, and regardless of when or how much a plaintiff allegedly used Roundup. That is
`not science—that is courtroom advocacy in a lab coat. This Court has previously described the
`“daunting challenge” of establishing specific causation in these cases. These new experts do not meet
`
`- 1 -
`MONSANTO’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE SPECIFIC CAUSATION EXPERT TESTIMONY IN WAVE 2 CASES
`3:16-MD-02741-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12789 Filed 03/19/21 Page 6 of 26
`
`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
`
`I.
`
`that challenge, and the Court should exclude them.
`BACKGROUND
`Wave Two Plaintiffs Have Disclosed a Handful of Specific Causation Experts for
`Whom the Court Has Not Previously Ruled.
`On June 14, 2019, this Court scheduled two waves of cases, grouped by governing state law,
`to be prepared for transfer back to their home districts. The second wave consists of cases filed in
`Illinois and North Carolina. The Wave Two Plaintiffs have disclosed the following new specific
`causation experts, all of whom, like the specific causation experts disclosed in the bellwether trials,
`purport to use a differential diagnosis (or differential “etiology”) in reaching their conclusion that
`Roundup caused each individual Plaintiff’s specific subtype of NHL.1
`• Dr. Barry Boyd is an oncologist, see Declaration of Michael Imbroscio (March 19, 2021)
`(“Imbroscio Decl.”), Ex. 1, Boyd (Seidl) Dep. at 10:19-20, who has been disclosed in multiple
`Roundup cases across the country. In clinical practice, Dr. Boyd has never told any patient that
`Roundup caused his or her cancer. Id. at 37:13-20. For Wave Two of the MDL, Dr. Boyd has
`been disclosed by Randall Seidl.
`• Dr. Lauren Pinter-Brown is an oncologist and internist. Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 2, Pinter-Brown
`Peterson Report at 1. She has never conducted any scientific research regarding pesticides of any
`kind, including glyphosate. See Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 3, Pinter-Brown (Peterson) Dep. at 81:7-
`23. Prior to being retained by Plaintiffs’ counsel, Dr. Pinter-Brown had not reviewed any of the
`literature on which she now relies, and she has found Roundup to be a substantial contributing
`factor to the plaintiff’s NHL in every case in which she has been retained as a paid expert. Id. at
`28:23-29:2. Dr. Pinter-Brown has been disclosed by numerous Plaintiffs in this litigation,
`including, in Wave Two, James Peterson and Michael Pecorelli.
`• Dr. Ron Schiff is an oncologist who left clinical practice in 2015 and has not published anything
`in the peer-reviewed literature since 1990. Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 4, Schiff (Schafer) Dep. at 11:14-
`
`
`1 As in Wave 1, consistent with the Court’s prior guidance, see Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 24, Transcript
`of January 4, 2019 Case Management Conference at 9-10, for ease of review and efficiency Monsanto
`is filing a single brief to address these multiple Plaintiffs and the three new specific causation experts
`Plaintiffs have named in Wave 2.
`
`- 2 -
`MONSANTO’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE SPECIFIC CAUSATION EXPERT TESTIMONY IN WAVE 2 CASES
`3:16-MD-02741-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12789 Filed 03/19/21 Page 7 of 26
`
`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
`
`21. In his clinical practice, Dr. Schiff never told any patient that his or her lymphoma was caused
`by Roundup. Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 5, Schiff (Harris) Dep. at 92:8-93:4. Since leaving the practice
`of medicine, his sole source of earned income has been working as an expert witness. Imbroscio
`Decl., Ex. 6, Schiff Rehak Dep. at 109:18-22. Dr. Schiff has never ruled out Roundup as the cause
`of a plaintiff’s disease in any case that Plaintiffs’ lawyers have asked him to review. Imbroscio
`Decl., Ex. 4, Schiff (Schafer) Dep. at 29:12-17. And he has never seen a plaintiff that he did not
`characterize as having “extensive” exposure to Roundup. Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 7. Schiff
`(Cervantes) Dep. at 126:7-16. Dr. Schiff has been disclosed by Gerard Cervantes, Robert
`Karman, Lorraine Rehak, and John Schafer.
`II.
`The Wave Two Plaintiffs All Had Risk Factors Associated with NHL.
`As set forth at length in Monsanto’s prior motion to exclude specific causation experts, (MDL
`
`ECF No. 2420), “non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma” is an umbrella term used to describe more than sixty
`different sub-types of cancer involving the lymphocytes, a type of white blood cell. The various sub-
`types have different clinical and prognostic characteristics and may also have different risk factors
`and causes. However, in the vast majority of all NHL cases, the cause is unknown. The relevant
`medical history, NHL diagnosis, and alleged Roundup exposure for each of the seven Wave 2
`Plaintiffs is summarized below.
`• Gerard Cervantes, a resident of Sugar Grove, Illinois, was diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell
`non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (“DLBCL”) in October 2004. See Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 8, Cervantes
`Plaintiff Fact Sheet at 4; Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 9, Cervantes Dep. at 59:2-6, 165:18-20. Mr.
`Cervantes occasionally used Roundup residentially, but alleges his primary exposure occurred in
`the course of operating his lawn care business, which he started in 1998. Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 9,
`Cervantes Dep. at 61:13-16, 71:14-17, 103:1-13. Mr. Cervantes has a family history of cancer,
`and his mother developed and died from NHL. Id. at 165:1-6. He also has a history of obesity,
`and was exposed to asbestos, polychlorobiphenyl (“PCB”), and benzene over the course of
`approximately 30 years while working as a welder and in other related roles for Nicor Gas
`Company. Id. at 40:4-44:14. Mr. Cervantes did not wear any personal protective equipment
`during his exposures to these substances. Id. at 47:1-7, 48:3-13, 49:13-19. He also has a history
`
`- 3 -
`MONSANTO’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE SPECIFIC CAUSATION EXPERT TESTIMONY IN WAVE 2 CASES
`3:16-MD-02741-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12789 Filed 03/19/21 Page 8 of 26
`
`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
`
`of occupational exposure to gasoline, diesel, and welding rod fumes. Id. at 51:5-16, 73:13-17,
`170:15-171:12. In 2004, Mr. Cervantes claimed that his NHL was caused by exposure to
`methylene chloride in his drinking water as part of a class action lawsuit. Id. at 12:20-14:2. In
`this lawsuit, he now claims his NHL was caused by exposure to Roundup.
`• Robert Karman, a former resident of Elgin, Illinois, was diagnosed with DLBCL in July 2015,
`and passed away in December 2015. Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 10, Karman Dep. at 112:5-16, 233:5-
`19, 254:9-24. He was 77 at the time of his diagnosis and death. Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 11, Schiff
`(Karman) Dep. at 102:22-103:2. Mr. Karman’s Roundup use was exclusively residential.
`Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 10, Karman Dep. at 264:14-265:14. Mr. Karman’s wife never saw him get
`Roundup on his hands or body while using it, and testified that Mr. Karman never mentioned
`getting Roundup on his body while using it. Id. at 144:5-13, 192:20-193:1, 200:24-201:10. Mr.
`Karman had several risk factors for NHL, including advanced age and an approximately 50-year
`smoking history. Id. at 223:6-15.2
`• Michael Pecorelli, a former resident of Elk Grove, Illinois, was diagnosed with splenic marginal
`zone lymphoma in July 2004, at the age of 75. Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 12, Pecorelli Dep. at 280:21-
`288:3. In 2011, Mr. Pecorelli also developed an unrelated cancer in his lung called a sarcoma or
`malignant fibrous histiocytoma (MFH). Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 13, Pinter-Brown (Pecorelli) Report
`at 4-5; Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 14, Pinter-Brown (Pecorelli) Dep. at 22:21-23:5. Mr. Pecorelli
`passed away in January 2021, at the age of 82. Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 12, Pecorelli Dep. at 98:17-
`99:7. Mr. Pecorelli’s sole cause of death was listed as MFH.3 Mr. Pecorelli was an almost 70
`year-long, 1 pack-per-day smoker, starting at the age of 12. Id. at 301:6-19. In addition to Mr.
`
`
`2 There are several inaccuracies on Mr. Karman’s Plaintiff Fact Sheet in this case, including stating
`that: (1) Mr. Karman did not smoke; (2) Mr. Karman had Lupus and other diseases that he did not
`have; (3) he was exposed to Roundup starting in “1980” in Elgin, Illinois, but Mr. Karman’s wife
`testified that they did not live in Elgin until 1991/1992; and (4) Mr. Karman used “Roundup powder,”
`but Mr. Karman’s wife testified he only used the ready-mix liquid in the same one gallon container.
`At her deposition, Mr. Karman’s wife confirmed that her testimony was accurate and the PFS was
`not. Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 10, Karman Dep. at 289:1-297:2.
`3 As explained in Monsanto’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Statute of Limitations and Proximate
`Causation Grounds, Monsanto is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s wrongful death claim
`in the Pecorelli case because the undisputed facts establish that Mr. Pecorelli died as a result of his
`MFH, and Plaintiff has introduced no admissible evidence to the contrary.
`- 4 -
`MONSANTO’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE SPECIFIC CAUSATION EXPERT TESTIMONY IN WAVE 2 CASES
`3:16-MD-02741-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12789 Filed 03/19/21 Page 9 of 26
`
`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
`
`Pecorelli’s age and extensive smoking history, Mr. Pecorelli’s son testified that Mr. Pecorelli was
`exposed to other pesticides in the course of operating his landscaping business. Id. at 89:2-90:15,
`101:20-103:4, 259:11-261:16.
`• James Peterson, a resident of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, was diagnosed with DLBCL in
`February 2017 at age 73. Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 15, Second Amended Peterson Fact Sheet at 16.
`In addition to his age and weight, Mr. Peterson was potentially exposed to a number of different
`carcinogens throughout his life, including photographic development chemicals in the 1970’s
`and 80’s, and occupational exposure to gasoline and diesel. Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 16, Peterson
`Dep. at 25:8-29:12, 52:13-18, 54:4-11. Mr. Peterson did not always wear personal protective
`equipment during his exposure to these carcinogens. Id. at 26:3-5, 54:12-19.
`• Lorraine Rehak, a resident of Palos Hills, Illinois, was diagnosed in June 2014 with low grade,
`Stage II follicular NHL. Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 17, First Amended Rehak Fact Sheet at 5. Ms.
`Rehak has been a steady smoker for 42 years—smoking a full pack every day according to her
`medical records—despite doctor warnings advising her to quit. Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 18, Rehak
`Dep. at 199:21-200:14. She also has an extensive family history of cancer, including her
`grandmother, who died of stomach cancer, her father, who died of liver and pancreatic cancer,
`and her sister, who currently has thyroid cancer. Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 17, First Amended Rehak
`Fact Sheet at 3-4. Ms. Rehak alleges primarily passive occupational exposure to Roundup while
`working in customer service and sales at a lawn care company, and residential exposure. Id. at 8-
`9.
`• John Schafer, a resident of Roseville, Illinois, was diagnosed with follicular lymphoma in
`January 2018, and with DLBCL in February 2018. Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 19, Third Amended
`Schafer Fact Sheet at 5; Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 20, Schiff (Schafer) Expert Report at 7-8. In
`addition to age and weight, Mr. Schafer’s risk factors include Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis, an
`autoimmune disease. Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 21, Schafer Dep. at 224:24-225:13, 227:08-21. Mr.
`Schafer claims occasional residential exposure to Roundup from 1985-2006 and from 2012-2018.
`Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 19, Third Amended Schafer Fact Sheet at 9-10.
`• Randall Seidl, a resident of Charlotte, North Carolina, was diagnosed with grade 3 follicular
`
`- 5 -
`MONSANTO’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE SPECIFIC CAUSATION EXPERT TESTIMONY IN WAVE 2 CASES
`3:16-MD-02741-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12789 Filed 03/19/21 Page 10 of 26
`
`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
`
`lymphoma in November 2014. Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 22, Seidl Dep. at 192:12-14, 233:13-18. Mr.
`Seidl’s Roundup use was exclusively residential. Id. at 156:20-22. He claims to have used it at
`3 or 4 different residences beginning in 1990, but that his most extensive Roundup usage occurred
`from 2005-2010 in San Antonio, Texas. Mr. Seidl had an increased risk of developing NHL based
`on his age (57) at the time of his diagnosis. Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 1, Boyd (Seidl) Dep. at 92:11-
`14.
`III.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Experts All Purport to Use a Differential “Etiology” in Forming Their
`Specific Causation Opinions.
`Like other specific causation experts previously assessed in this MDL, these experts purport
`
`to reach their specific causation opinions through what they claim is a differential etiology. As this
`Court has acknowledged, “differential diagnosis” is a term courts use to describe the “scientific
`technique of identifying the cause of a medical problem by eliminating the likely causes until the
`most probable one is isolated.” Clausen v. M/V New Carissa, 339 F.3d 1049, 1057 (9th Cir. 2003)
`(quoting Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257, 262 (4th Cir. 1999)). This process requires
`an expert to first “rule in” all potential causes—i.e., “to compile a comprehensive list of hypotheses
`that might explain the set of salient clinical findings under consideration.” Id. The expert must then
`“rule out” the possible causes using a scientific method until only the most likely cause remains. Id.
`
`The “differential etiology” performed by Plaintiffs’ experts, while it has a similar name, is
`fundamentally different from the accepted medical practice of differential diagnosis. It purports to
`use a comparable methodology, but to discern the fundamental cause of a disease rather than to
`diagnose the disease itself. See, e.g., Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 11, Schiff (Karman) Dep. at 121:10-15.
`As discussed below, unlike a differential diagnosis the differential “etiology” is a “legal construct”
`that is not used in actual medical practice and has no support in published scientific literature.
`
`Each of Plaintiffs’ experts here utilizes a legal perversion of the “differential diagnosis”
`process that strays far from any reliable methodology because their process is designed to lead to their
`pre-ordained conclusion. First, they rule in Roundup by uncritically relying on the same flawed
`studies the general causation experts rely on and without taking account of the Plaintiffs’ specific
`subtype of NHL. See, e.g., Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 4, Schiff (Schafer) Dep. at 42:8-20. While quick to
`
`- 6 -
`MONSANTO’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE SPECIFIC CAUSATION EXPERT TESTIMONY IN WAVE 2 CASES
`3:16-MD-02741-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12789 Filed 03/19/21 Page 11 of 26
`
`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
`
`rule in Roundup in every case, these experts refuse to also rule in known NHL risk factors, even when
`other experts (assessing different Plaintiffs) readily agree that such risk factors should be ruled in for
`any reliable differential diagnosis. Second, the experts purport to rule out every other relevant NHL
`risk factor except Roundup, again without considering the specific sub-type at issue, and without
`applying the same reasoning and methodological rigor to the potential alternative causes that they
`apply to Roundup. And throughout their analyses, these experts ignore altogether the possibility that
`Plaintiffs’ NHL may have no known cause, as would be the case where NHL is caused by a yet to be
`discovered factor or from the random mutation that inevitably occurs through normal cell division.
`According to each of these experts, if the Plaintiff came into contact with Roundup, that fact alone
`automatically excludes the possibility of an idiopathic or unknown cause.
`LEGAL STANDARD
`Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, an expert may give opinion testimony only if (a) the
`expert’s “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand
`the evidence or to determine a fact in issue”; (b) “the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data”;
`(c) “the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods”; and (d) the expert “has reliably
`applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. In other words, an
`expert must be qualified and must offer testimony that is both relevant and reliable. Id.; see also
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993). Here, the experts’ opinions should
`be excluded on the grounds that (1) they are not reliable, and (2) they are not helpful to the jury
`because the experts automatically conclude Roundup was the cause without weighing or eliminating
`other risk factors in any reliable manner.
`In the specific causation context, Rule 702 requires experts purporting to use a differential
`diagnosis to carry out both aspects of that methodology—“ruling in” all possible causes and “ruling
`out” all but the subject cause—in a reliable fashion. To reach an admissible causation opinion through
`a reliable differential diagnosis, an expert must “accurately diagnose the nature of the disease, reliably
`rule in the possible causes of it, and reliably rule out the rejected causes.” In re Aredia & Zometa
`Prod. Liab. Litig., 483 F. App’x 182, 188 (6th Cir. 2012). Because the inherent malleability of this
`methodology can shroud what may be little more than subjective guesswork, the district court must
`
`- 7 -
`MONSANTO’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE SPECIFIC CAUSATION EXPERT TESTIMONY IN WAVE 2 CASES
`3:16-MD-02741-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12789 Filed 03/19/21 Page 12 of 26
`
`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
`
`“delve into the particular witness’s method of performing a differential diagnosis to determine if his
`or her ultimate conclusions are reliable.” Poust v. Huntleigh Healthcare, 998 F. Supp. 478, 496
`(D.N.J. 1998). Courts have consistently held that expert opinions that pay lip service to this
`methodology but do not reliably apply it should be excluded. See, e.g., In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin
`Calcium) Mktg., Sales Practices & Prod. Liab. Litig., 892 F.3d 624, 642–45 (4th Cir. 2018).
`In these personal injury cases, specific causation—here, whether Roundup caused each
`Plaintiff’s NHL—is an essential element of Plaintiffs’ claims. See, e.g., Wehmeier v. UNR Indus.,
`Inc., 213 Ill. App. 3d 6, 28, 572 N.E.2d 320, 335 (1991); Yates v. Ford Motor Co., No. 5:12-CV-752-
`FL, 2015 WL 3463559, at *2 (E.D.N.C. May 30, 2015). Under both North Carolina and Illinois law,
`whether a chemical caused an individual’s injury is beyond the experience and common knowledge
`of lay jurors, so each Plaintiff must prove it through expert testimony. See, e.g., Solis v. BASF Corp.,
`979 N.E.2d 419, 437, 365 Ill.Dec. 815, 833 (Ill. App. 1 Dist., 2012); Hayes v. Tractor Supply Co.,
`170 N.C. App. 405, 409, 612 S.E.2d 399, 402 (2005). If Plaintiffs fail to present an admissible expert
`opinion to establish specific causation, summary judgment is appropriate. In re Roundup Prods. Liab.
`Litig., 358 F. Supp. 3d 956, 957 (N.D. Cal. 2019). (“To defeat Monsanto’s motion for summary
`judgment on this issue, the plaintiffs must present at least one admissible expert opinion to support
`[his] specific causation argument.”).
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`Dr. Schiff’s Testimony Reveals That the Experts’ “Differential Etiology” Methodology
`Is Results Driven and Made for Litigation.
`The differential etiology Plaintiffs’ experts invoke does little more than dress up in the
`trappings of scientific method a pre-determined conclusion that Roundup caused Plaintiffs’ NHL.
`Perhaps the best illustration of the unscientific nature of their testimony is Dr. Schiff’s admission that
`the “methodology” he employs, which he calls a “differential etiology,” was invented purely for
`litigation, Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 11, Schiff (Karman) Dep. at 120:14-20 (“Q. And is [differential
`etiology] a twist of phrase from the medical community based on differential diagnosis? A.
`Absolutely. I only use that phrase because of you guys.”), and is “completely different” from the type
`of differential diagnosis he would conduct in medical practice, id. at 121:10-13. In fact, Dr. Schiff
`
`- 8 -
`MONSANTO’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE SPECIFIC CAUSATION EXPERT TESTIMONY IN WAVE 2 CASES
`3:16-MD-02741-VC
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12789 Filed 03/19/21 Page 13 of 26
`
`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
`
`has never used his “differential etiology” in medical practice, and admitted that there are no
`publications regarding his differential etiology method or how it should be used to assess the cause
`of a person’s cancer. Imbroscio Decl., Ex. 7, Schiff (Cervantes) Dep. at 80:22-81:20 (“Q. It’s not
`something that you ever used in your medical practice; right? A. Also correct. Q. And because it’s
`a legal construct, you’re not aware of any medical or scientific publications that reference this
`differential etiology methodology or how to apply it to cases? A. That’s correct.”). Dr. Schiff further
`admitted that in cases where a plaintiff has more than one risk factor, and despite labeling his
`methodology a “differen

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