Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12898 Filed 04/02/21 Page 1 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
`
`Ken Moll
`Rebecca Fredona
`Fatima Abuzerr
`MOLL LAW GROUP
`22 W Washington St
`15th Floor
`Chicago, IL 60602
`T: 312.462.1700
`F: 312.756.0045
`rfredona@molllawgroup.com
`Rhon E. Jones (JON093)
`William R. Sutton (SUT013)
`BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
`PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
`Post Office Box 4160
`218 Commerce St
`Montgomery, AL 36104
`T: 334.269.2343
`F: 334.954.7555
`rhon.jones@beasleyallen.com
`william.sutton@beasleyallen.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`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-VC
`Seidl v. Monsanto Co., 3:17-cv-00519-VC
`
`MDL No. 2741
`Case No. 3:16-md-02741-VC
`PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT RESPONSE IN
`OPPOSITION TO THE GENERAL
`ISSUES RAISED IN MONSANTO
`COMPANY’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`TESTIMONY OF SPECIFIC
`CAUSATION EXPERTS BARRY BOYD,
`LAUREN PINTER-BROWN, WILLIAM
`SAWYER, RON SCHIFF AND DENNIS
`WEISENBURGER ON DAUBERT
`GROUNDS
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Monsanto Company’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Specific Causation Experts
`
`- 1 -
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE GENERAL ISSUES RAISED IN MONSANTO
`COMPANY’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF SPECIFIC CAUSATION EXPERTS BARRY BOYD,
`LAUREN PINTER-BROWN, WILLIAM SAWYER, RON SCHIFF, AND DENNIS WEISENBURGER ON DAUBERT
`GROUNDS
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12898 Filed 04/02/21 Page 2 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
`
`
`Barry Boyd, Lauren Pinter-Brown, William Sawyer, Ron Schiff, and Dennis Weisenburger on
`
`Daubert Grounds (“Monsanto Motion”)1 addresses the reports and deposition testimony of five
`
`specific causation experts relating to seven Wave 2 Plaintiffs represented by two different law
`
`firms. This opposition addresses only the general issues that Monsanto raises in its motions,
`
`including the legal standard that applies to the motions. For their oppositions to Monsanto’s
`
`Motion to exclude each expert, Plaintiffs have filed separate opposition briefs for each of the
`
`five experts which incorporates by reference the below arguments.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The Court Previously Considered and Rejected Monsanto’s Claim That Specific
`Causation Experts Should Be Excluded If They Rely on General Causation Experts’
`Opinions, Do Not Consider Every Possible Risk Factor, and/or Do Not Rule Out
`“Idiopathy”
`
`
`In the instant motion, Monsanto essentially mimics the arguments it raised against the
`
`Bellwether Plaintiffs’ and Wave 1 Plaintiffs’ specific causation experts. Monsanto does not
`dispute that the Plaintiffs’ experts may use the differential etiology method upheld by the Ninth
`Circuit and this Court as the basis for their opinions (PTO 85 at p. 2), or argue that the experts
`misuse the studies. Instead, Monsanto argues that the experts’ opinions should be excluded
`because: (1) they “rely on the same flawed studies the general causation experts rely on . . . ,”
`(2) “[f]or the most part, these experts made no attempt at all to address idiopathy in their expert
`reports,” and (3) they “fail to reliably consider and rule out other potential causes of NHL . . .”
`See, e.g., Monsanto Motion at p. 1. This Court’s prior rulings quickly dispense with each of
`these arguments.
`a. Reliance on General Causation Experts
`
`This Court, in PTO 85, rejected Monsanto’s claim that it is entitled to prevail on its
`
`motion because the specific causation experts rely on the same studies as the general causation
`
`
`1 This responds to the general issues raised in Documents 8012, 12784, 12789 and 12793.
`
` - 2 -
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE GENERAL ISSUES RAISED IN MONSANTO
`COMPANY’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF SPECIFIC CAUSATION EXPERTS BARRY BOYD,
`LAUREN PINTER-BROWN, WILLIAM SAWYER, RON SCHIFF, AND DENNIS WEISENBURGER ON DAUBERT
`GROUNDS
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 12898 Filed 04/02/21 Page 3 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
`
`
`experts, calling Monsanto’s argument “off point” because “at trial, [Plaintiffs’ specific
`causation experts] basis for ruling in glyphosate will be the general causation opinions.” PTO
`85 at pp. 2-3. For the same reasons the Court denied Monsanto’s motion regarding the
`Bellwether Plaintiffs, Monsanto’s instant motion should be denied. Monsanto’s position
`regarding the studies upon which the general causation experts rely is a rehash of a failed
`argument already rejected by this Court.
`b. There is no Legal Requirement to Consider Every Potential Risk Factor
`
`Plaintiffs’ experts are not required to scour the world and investigate every conceivable
`
`alternative potential cause of a Plaintiffs’ NHL in order for their opinions to be admissible
`under Daubert. The Ninth Circuit in Wendell v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, 858 F.3d 1227, 1237
`(2017), made that clear:
`We do not require experts to eliminate all other possible causes of a condition for the
`expert’s testimony to be reliable. It is enough that the proposed cause “be a substantial
`causative factor.” This is true in patients with multiple risk factors, and analogously, in
`cases where there is a high rate of idiopathy.
`
`Likewise, in Cooper v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., 239 Cal. App. 4th 555,
`
`580 (2014), the California Court of Appeals ruled that a plaintiff need not rule out every
`potential risk factor that could conceivably have also contributed to her disease:
` Thus, because California has rejected the notion that a plaintiff must definitively
`“exclude all possibilities other than the defendant’s conduct or product as the cause of
`the plaintiff’s harm, clearly an expert, in reaching a specific causation opinion, need not
`exclude all other possibilities before he or she can express an opinion that the
`defendant’s conduct or product caused the plaintiff’s harm.
`
`
`c. Plaintiffs’ Experts Need Not Exclude Idiopathy
`
`Monsanto’s “idiopathy” argument is similarly a rehash of the argument this Court also
`
`rejected in PTO 85. The Court wrote:
`Recognizing that “[m]edicine partakes of art as well as science,” the Ninth Circuit’s
`recent decisions reflect a view that district courts should typically admit specific
`causation opinions that lean strongly toward the “art” side of the spectrum. Messick, 747
`F.3d at 1198; see also Wendell, 858 F.3d at 1237 (“The first several victims of a new
`toxic tort should not be barred from having their day in court simply because the
`medical literature, which will eventually show the connection between the victims’
` - 3 -
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE GENERAL ISSUES RAISED IN MONSANTO
`COMPANY’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF SPECIFIC CAUSATION EXPERTS BARRY BOYD,
`LAUREN PINTER-BROWN, WILLIAM SAWYER, RON SCHIFF, AND DENNIS WEISENBURGER ON DAUBERT
`GROUNDS
`
`

`

`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 12898 Filed 04/02/21 Page 4 of 6
`
`condition and the toxic substance, has not yet been completed.” (quoting Clausen, 339
`F.3d at 1060)).
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`Under Ninth Circuit caselaw, doctors enjoy wide latitude in how they practice their art
`when offering causation opinions. See Wendell, 858 F.3d at 1237 (“Where, as here, two
`doctors who stand at or near the top of their field and have extensive clinical experience
`with the rare disease or class of disease at issue, are prepared to give expert opinions
`supporting causation, we conclude that Daubert poses no bar based on their principles
`and methodology.”). It is sufficient for a qualified expert, in reliance on his clinical
`experience, review of a plaintiffs’ medical records, and evaluation of the general
`causation evidence, to conclude that an “obvious and known risk factor[]” is the cause of
`that plaintiff’s disease. See Wendell, 858 F.3d at 1235. Here, the specific causation
`experts did that. Relying on the plaintiffs’ admissible general causation opinions –
`which assert a robust connection between glyphosate and NHL – the experts concluded
`that glyphosate was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiffs’ NHL.
`
`Moreover, the experts relied heavily on the plaintiffs’ exposure levels in drawing their
`conclusions. All three experts noted the plaintiffs’ extensive Roundup usage, and further
`explained – as did the plaintiffs' general causation opinions – that both the McDuffie
`(2001) and Eriksson (2008) studies showed a dose-response relationship between
`glyphosate and NHL. See generally In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation, 2018
`WL 3368534, at *9-10. Thus, consistent with Ninth Circuit caselaw, the experts
`provided a basis for their conclusion that these plaintiffs fall into the category of
`Roundup users who developed NHL. The Court may be skeptical of their conclusions,
`and in particular of the assumption built into their opinions from the general causation
`phase about the strength of the epidemiological evidence. But their core opinions – that
`the plaintiffs had no other significant risk factors and were exposed to enough
`glyphosate to conclude that it was a substantial factor in causing their NHL – are
`admissible.
`
`PTO 85 at pp. 5-6 (footnotes omitted).
`Thus, because the experts here followed the same methodology as those previously
`addressed by the Plaintiffs’ Bellwether experts, Monsanto’s Motion should be denied.
`
`Dated: April 2, 2021
`
`/s/ Fatima Abuzerr
`Ken Moll
`Rebecca Fredona
`Fatima Abuzerr
`MOLL LAW GROUP
`
`By:
`
`- 4 -
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE GENERAL ISSUES RAISED IN MONSANTO
`COMPANY’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF SPECIFIC CAUSATION EXPERTS BARRY BOYD,
`LAUREN PINTER-BROWN, WILLIAM SAWYER, RON SCHIFF, AND DENNIS WEISENBURGER ON DAUBERT
`GROUNDS
`
`

`

`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 12898 Filed 04/02/21 Page 5 of 6
`
`22 W Washington St
`15th Floor
`Chicago, IL 60602
`T: 312.462.1700
`F: 312.756.0045
`rfredona@molllawgroup.com
`Rhon E. Jones (JON093)
`William R. Sutton (SUT013)
`BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
`PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
`Post Office Box 4160
`218 Commerce St
`Montgomery, AL 36104
`T: 334.269.2343
`F: 334.954.7555
`rhon.jones@beasleyallen.com
`william.sutton@beasleyallen.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`- 5 -
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE GENERAL ISSUES RAISED IN MONSANTO
`COMPANY’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF SPECIFIC CAUSATION EXPERTS BARRY BOYD,
`LAUREN PINTER-BROWN, WILLIAM SAWYER, RON SCHIFF, AND DENNIS WEISENBURGER ON DAUBERT
`GROUNDS
`
`

`

`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 12898 Filed 04/02/21 Page 6 of 6
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 2nd day of April 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/ Fatima Abuzerr
`
`- 6 -
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE GENERAL ISSUES RAISED IN MONSANTO
`COMPANY’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF SPECIFIC CAUSATION EXPERTS BARRY BOYD,
`LAUREN PINTER-BROWN, WILLIAM SAWYER, RON SCHIFF, AND DENNIS WEISENBURGER ON DAUBERT
`GROUNDS
`
`