Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 13069 Filed 05/18/21 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`MDL No. 2741
`
`Case No. 16-md-02741-VC
`
`
`PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 234:
`QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING ON
`THE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
`APPROVAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tomorrow’s hearing will focus on big-picture concerns regarding the proposed
`
`settlement. If the proponents of the settlement are able to meaningfully address those concerns,
`
`another hearing will be scheduled to discuss the many smaller questions presented by the
`
`settlement. Accordingly, at tomorrow’s hearing, the parties should be prepared to address the
`
`following issues:
`
`•
`
`Is it possible to ensure adequate notice in a case where: (i) the settlement is so
`
`complicated; (ii) the class is so large, disparate, and transient; and (iii) the class members’
`
`chances of contracting the disease are so low, particularly in the near future?
`
`• Even if it were adequate for everyone else, how can the proposed notice be adequate for
`
`derivative claimants (for example, the future spouse of someone who has experienced
`
`Roundup exposure)?
`
`• The requirements for class certification in the settlement context are less stringent than in
`
`the litigation context. But is it appropriate to certify a class for settlement purposes when
`
`it is obvious that the class could never be certified for litigation purposes? As applied
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 13069 Filed 05/18/21 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`here, for example, would it be appropriate for the Court to conclude that common
`
`questions predominate over individual questions when differing exposure levels and
`
`exposure times clearly preclude the proposed class from being certified for litigation
`
`purposes?
`
`•
`
`If the Court understands the settlement correctly, it binds anyone exposed to Roundup
`
`before February 3, 2021 (assuming they do not opt out), but contemplates that the
`
`compensation fund and medical monitoring program can be terminated a few years after
`
`the settlement is approved. Why would it be in the interest of people exposed to Roundup
`
`before February 2021 to bind themselves to a fund and program that expires so quickly?
`
`• How should the Court evaluate whether the amount in the compensation fund is
`
`sufficient?
`
`• The briefs in support of the settlement seem to imply that once a person becomes a
`
`member of the class, they will be protected from the adverse effect of any federal
`
`preemption ruling by the Supreme Court. In other words, the implication is that if the
`
`Supreme Court were to rule next term that the state law claims asserted by these mass tort
`
`plaintiffs are preempted, class members would retain the right to recover from the fund.
`
`The briefs further seem to imply that such a ruling would not prevent class members from
`
`“opting out at the back end” and suing for compensatory damages. Is that correct? Is
`
`there language in the settlement agreement which makes that clear?
`
`• One way to evaluate the proposed settlement is to compare it to the status quo, which is
`
`that plaintiffs continue to sue and Monsanto continues to negotiate settlements with them.
`
`This comparison appears to be the primary focus of the briefs. But another way to
`
`evaluate the proposed settlement is to compare it to other more conventional
`
`arrangements. From the standpoint of the class members, how does the proposed
`
`settlement compare to an arrangement in which Monsanto puts a warning on its label
`
`sufficient to foreclose future claims and establishes a fund that offers compensation as a
`
`potential alternative to litigation?
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 13069 Filed 05/18/21 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`• Can the Court evaluate whether this settlement is better than the status quo if it does not
`
`have information regarding the settlements Monsanto is currently reaching with
`
`individual plaintiffs?
`
`• Why is it in the interest of the class to agree in advance to the admission in future trials of
`
`the conclusions of a court-appointed independent science panel, given how well the trials
`
`have been going for plaintiffs without such a panel?
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: May 18, 2021
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`VINCE CHHABRIA
`United States District Judge
`
`3
`
`