Case 1:20-cv-01085-MN Document 25 Filed 06/14/21 Page 1 of 53 PageID #: 2316
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`C.A. No. 20-1085-MN
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
`APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE
`CLASS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SETTLEMENT
`
`SCOTT GILMORE et al.,
`
`
`
`MONSANTO COMPANY,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01085-MN Document 25 Filed 06/14/21 Page 2 of 53 PageID #: 2317
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`FACTS ............................................................................................................................................ 2
`A. Background and Procedural History ................................................................................ 2
`1. Allegations in the Actions ....................................................................................... 3
`2.
`The Ezcurra Action ................................................................................................. 4
`3.
`The Related Actions ................................................................................................ 6
`4.
`This Action .............................................................................................................. 7
`5. Mediation and Settlement Negotiations ................................................................ 10
`6.
`The Tomlinson Action........................................................................................... 12
`B. The Key Terms of the Settlement .................................................................................. 13
`1.
`The Settlement Class............................................................................................. 13
`2. Relief to the Class Members ................................................................................. 14
` a. Monetary Relief: Up to $45 Million Cash Consideration .............................14
` b. Class Notice and Administration Costs ........................................................14
` c. Service Awards and Attorneys’ Fees and Costs ...........................................15
` d. Payment of Class Members’ Claims .............................................................16
`3.
`The Release ........................................................................................................... 17
`4.
`Procedures for Opting Out or Objecting ............................................................... 17
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................................................. 18
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 19
`I.
`THE NATIONWIDE SETTLEMENT CLASS SHOULD BE CERTIFIED ....................... 19
`A. The Numerosity Requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) Is Satisfied .......................................... 19
`B. The Commonality Requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) Is Satisfied ....................................... 19
`C. The Typicality Requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) Is Satisfied ............................................. 20
`D. The Adequacy Requirement of Rule 23(a)(4) Is Satisfied ............................................. 20
`E. Class Certification Is Appropriate Under Rule 23(b) .................................................... 22
`1. Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate .............................................. 22
`2.
`Settlement Is the Superior Method for Resolving This Controversy .................... 23
`II. THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE PRELIMINARILY APPROVED .............................. 24
`A. The Settlement Is Entitled to a Presumption of Fairness ............................................... 24
`B. The Settlement Is Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate ........................................................ 26
`1.
`The Relevant Girsh Factors Support Approval of the Settlement ........................ 28
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01085-MN Document 25 Filed 06/14/21 Page 3 of 53 PageID #: 2318
`
` a. The Complexity, Expense, and Likely Duration of the Litigation ..................28
` b. The Reaction of the Potential Class Members to the Settlement ...................29
` c. The Stage of the Proceedings and the Amount of Discovery Completed ......29
` d. The Risks of Establishing Liability and Damages .........................................30
` e. The Risks of Maintaining Class Action Status Through Trial .......................32
` f. The Ability of Defendants to Withstand a Greater Judgment ............................ 33
` g. The Range of Reasonableness of the Settlement Fund in Light of the Best-
` Possible Recovery and in Light of All the Attendant Risks of Litigation ......34
`The Prudential and Direct Benefit (Baby Products) Considerations Favor
`2.
`Approval ........................................................................................................................ 34
` a. The maturity of the underlying substantive issues and related factors bearing
` on the probable outcome of a trial favors approval .......................................35
` b. Class Members have the right to opt-out of the Settlements .........................36
` c. The procedure for processing individual claims under the Settlements is fair
` and reasonable ................................................................................................36
`
` d. The Degree of Direct Benefit Provided to the Class......................................38
`III. THE NOTICES AND NOTICE PLAN SHOULD BE APPROVED .................................. 38
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01085-MN Document 25 Filed 06/14/21 Page 4 of 53 PageID #: 2319
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Alves v. Main,
`2012 WL 6043272 (D.N.J. Dec. 4, 2012) aff’d, 559 F. App’x 151 (3d Cir.
`2014) ..........................................................................................................................................5
`
`In re Am. Investors Life Ins. Co. Annuity Marketing and Sales Practices Litig.,
`263 F.R.D. 226 (E.D. Pa. 2009) ...............................................................................................24
`
`Amchem Prod., Inc. v. Windsor,
`521 U.S. 591 (1997) .................................................................................................................22
`
`In re Baby Prod. Antitrust Litig.,
`708 F. 3d 163 (3d Cir. 2013)............................................................................................ passim
`
`Beneli v. BCA Fin. Servs., Inc.,
`324 F.R.D. 89 (D.N.J. 2018) ....................................................................................................23
`
`Biddle v. Lowe’s Home Centers LLC,
`No. 50-2019-CC-011405 (filed Aug. 27, 2019) ........................................................................6
`
`Boyette et al v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc.,
`No. 4:19-cv-04119 (W.D. Ark.) (filed Sept. 13, 2019) .............................................................7
`
`In re Budeprion XL Mktg. & Sales Litig.,
`2012 WL 2527021 (E.D. Pa. July 2, 2012) ..............................................................................25
`
`Carson v. Monsanto,
`4:17-cv-237 (S.D. Ga.), Dkt. 49...............................................................................................31
`
`In re Cendant Corp. Litig.,
`264 F.3d 201 (3d Cir.2001)................................................................................................29, 30
`
`In re Comcast Corp. Set-Top Cable TV Box Antitrust Litig.,
`2019 WL 4645331 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 24, 20019) ........................................................................28
`
`In Re Comcast,
`2018 WL 4252463 ...................................................................................................................38
`
`Cupit v. Dry Basement, Inc.,
`592 S.W.3d 417 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020) ......................................................................................13
`
`Ezcurra et al v. Monsanto Co.,
`No. 9:20-cv-80524 (S.D. Fla.) (filed 2/19/2020) ............................................................. passim
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01085-MN Document 25 Filed 06/14/21 Page 5 of 53 PageID #: 2320
`
`Ezcurra v. Monsanto
`(11th Cir. Jan. 28, 2021) ..........................................................................................................31
`
`Ezcurra v. Monsanto Co.,
`2020 WL 5491428 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2020)..............................................................................6
`
`Ezcurra v. Monsanto Co.,
`Case No. 9:20-cv-80524-DMM (S.D. Fla.) .....................................................................4, 5, 10
`
`Fagundes v. The Home Depot,
`No. 0:20-cv-61035 (S.D. Fla.) (filed Mar. 21, 2020) .................................................................7
`
`Fitzgerald v. Gann Law Books,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174567 (D.N.J. Dec. 7, 2014) ............................................................38
`
`In re Gen. Motors Corp. Pick–Up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir.1995)......................................................................................21, 24, 28, 32
`
`Girsh v. Jepson,
`521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975)............................................................................................. passim
`
`In re: Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Priv. Litig.,
`934 F.3d 316 (3d Cir. 2019)...................................................................................27, 34, 35, 38
`
`Gregorio et al v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
`No. CACE-21-002428 (filed Feb. 4, 2021) ...............................................................................7
`
`Hanna et al v. Walmart, Inc.,
`CIV SB 2100789 (Sup. Ct. Cal. for San Bernardino) (filed Jan. 12, 2021)
`(Hanna II) ..................................................................................................................................7
`
`Hanna et al v. Walmart Inc.,
`No. 5:20-cv-01075 (C.D. Cal.) (filed May 22, 2020) (Hanna I) ...............................................7
`
`Hardeman v. Monsanto
`(May 14, 2021) (Nos. 19-16636, 19-16708) ............................................................................31
`
`Henderson v. Volvo Cars of N. Am., LLC,
`2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46291 (D.N.J. Mar. 22, 2013) ............................................................37
`
`Jewell et al v. Walmart, Inc.,
`No. 4:19-cv-04088 (W.D. Ark.) (filed Aug. 12, 2019) ..............................................................7
`
`In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Prod. Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Liab.
`Litig.,
`903 F.3d 278 (3d Cir. 2018)...................................................................................................8, 9
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01085-MN Document 25 Filed 06/14/21 Page 6 of 53 PageID #: 2321
`
`Jones v. Monsanto Co.,
`2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91260 (W.D. Mo. May 13, 2021) ......................................................15
`
`Krell v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. (In re Prudential),
`148 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 1998)...........................................................................................2, 27, 28
`
`Lamerson v. Walmart Stores, Inc.,
`No. 50-2019-CC-009139 (filed July 15, 2019) ..........................................................................6
`
`Lupian v. Joseph Cory Holdings,
`2019 WL 3283044 (D.N.J. July 22, 2019) ...............................................................................18
`
`Morley v. Ace Hardware Corp.,
`No. CONO-19-010648 (filed Sept. 6, 2019)..............................................................................7
`
`In re Nat’l Football League Players Concussion Inj. Litig.,
`821 F.3d 410 (3d Cir. 2016), as amended (May 2, 2016)................................................ passim
`
`Nyby v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc.,
`2017 WL 3315264 (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2017) ...............................................................................24
`
`In re: Processed Egg Prod. Antitrust Litig.,
`2016 WL 3584632 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2016) ...........................................................................22
`
`Rodriguez v. Nat’l City Bank,
`726 F.3d 372 (3d Cir.2013)......................................................................................................19
`
`Shelly v. Target Corp.,
`No. 50-2019-CC-010718 (filed Aug. 14, 2019) ........................................................................6
`
`Silvis v. Ambit Energy L.P.,
`326 F.R.D. 419 (E.D. Pa. 2018) ...............................................................................................25
`
`Skeen v. BMW of N. Am., LLC,
`2016 WL 4033969 (D.N.J. July 26, 2016) ...............................................................................23
`
`Smith v. Merck & Co.,
`2019 WL 3281609 (D.N.J. July 19, 2019) ...............................................................................24
`
`Somogyi v. Freedom Mortg. Corp.,
`2020 WL 6146875 (D.N.J. Oct. 20, 2020).........................................................................24, 27
`
`Spark v. MBNA Corp.,
`48 F. App’x 385 (3d Cir. 2002) ...............................................................................................34
`
`Sullivan v. DB Invs., Inc.,
`667 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2011).....................................................................................................22
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01085-MN Document 25 Filed 06/14/21 Page 7 of 53 PageID #: 2322
`
`Taylor et al v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`No. 20-cv-00655 (E.D. Cal.) (filed Mar. 27, 2020) .............................................................7, 10
`
`Tomlinson v. Monsanto,
`1916-CV22788 (which is currently pending in the Circuit Court of Jackson
`County) ........................................................................................................................12, 13, 33
`
`Udeen v. Subaru of Am., Inc.,
`2019 WL 4894568 (D.N.J. Oct. 4, 2019) ................................................................................26
`
`Varacallo v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co.,
`226 F.R.D. 207 (D.N.J. 2005) ..................................................................................................23
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
`564 U.S. 338 (2011) .................................................................................................................19
`
`In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig.,
`391 F.3d 516 (3d Cir.2004).............................................................................................. passim
`
`Waters v. Home Depot USA, Inc.,
`No. 50-2019-CC-009140 (filed July 15, 2019) ..........................................................................7
`
`Weeks et al v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC,
`No. 2:19-cv-06828 (C.D. Cal.) (filed Aug. 6, 2019) .................................................................7
`
`Weeks v. Home Depot,
`2:19-cv-06780 (C.D. Cal.) (filed Aug. 8, 2019) ..................................................................7, 10
`
`Williams et al v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC,
`No. 5:20-cv-01356 (C.D. Cal.) (filed July 6, 2020) ...................................................................7
`
`Statutes
`
`Delaware Consumer Fraud Act .............................................................................................. passim
`
`Federal Fungicide, Rodenticide, and Insecticide Registration Act ....................................4, 8, 9, 31
`
`Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ....................................................................................12, 14
`
`Other Authorities
`
`U.S. Const. amend. I ................................................................................................................31, 32
`
`Baum Hedlund, Monsanto Papers, https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-
`law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/monsanto-secret-documents/ (last visited June
`8, 2021) ....................................................................................................................................30
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01085-MN Document 25 Filed 06/14/21 Page 8 of 53 PageID #: 2323
`
`Baum Hedlund, Monsanto Papers, https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-
`law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/monsanto-secret-documents/ (last visited Apr.
`13, 2021) ..................................................................................................................................25
`
`Environmental Protection Agency, Glyphosate Registration Review Docket,
`https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361 (last visited
`Apr. 13, 2021) ..........................................................................................................................25
`
`Environmental Protection Agency, Glyphosate Registration Review Docket,
`https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361 (last visited
`June 8, 2021) ............................................................................................................................29
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 .........................................................................................................................4, 7
`
`Fed. R. Ev. 408 ..............................................................................................................................10
`
`W. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions § 13:13 (5th ed. 2011) ...............................................18
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01085-MN Document 25 Filed 06/14/21 Page 9 of 53 PageID #: 2324
`
`With Defendant Monsanto Company’s consent, Plaintiffs Scott Gilmore, Julio Ezcurra,
`
`James Weeks, Amanda Boyette, Anthony Jewell, Paul Taylor, Sherry Hanna, and Kristy Williams
`
`(“Plaintiffs” or “Class Representatives”), on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class, move
`
`for preliminary approval of a proposed nationwide Settlement Agreement.1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This is an alleged consumer-fraud class action in which Plaintiffs allege that Monsanto
`
`marketed and sold glyphosate-containing Roundup® Weed & Grass Killer products (the
`
`“Products”2) without disclosing that they may cause cancer or other health effects. Monsanto
`
`denies Plaintiffs’ allegations and denies any liability. The proposed nationwide Settlement follows
`
`litigation brought by purchasers of the Products in this Court and in other federal and state courts
`
`around the country (the “Related Actions”) against Monsanto and retailers of the Products related
`
`to the failure to disclose these alleged risks. Following litigation and discovery in other Related
`
`Actions, as well as litigation, mediation, and extensive arm’s length negotiations in this action, the
`
`parties have agreed to a claims-made settlement pursuant to which Monsanto will establish a fund
`
`between $23 million (the “Floor Amount”) and $45 million (the “Ceiling Amount”) against which
`
`Class Members can submit claims for approximately 20 percent of the average retail price of the
`
`Products they purchased.3
`
`
`1 The Settlement Agreement is attached to the Declaration of Gillian Wade as Exhibit 1. Unless
`otherwise specified, all capitalized terms herein have the meanings specified in the Settlement
`Agreement.
`
` 2
`
` This settlement only addresses Lawn & Garden Products, which are marketed and sold for
`purchase and use by consumers for noncommercial applications. The settlement is not intended
`to reach Roundup® products marketed and sold for agricultural (“AG”) and industrial and
`professional (“I&P”) applications, and those products are not included in the definition of
`“Products.”
`
` 3
`
` Payments per unit range from $0.50 to $33.00, for up to 11 units (depending on the state of
`purchase) without proof of purchase, depending on the price of the product(s) purchased. The
`1
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01085-MN Document 25 Filed 06/14/21 Page 10 of 53 PageID #: 2325
`
`This Settlement is not only fair to the Class but provides it with an outstanding result. The
`
`compensation available to Class Members is more than two-thirds of Plaintiffs’ estimate of best-
`
`case damages, and many times more than Monsanto’s expert’s estimate of its worst-case damages
`
`(assuming liability were established). The Settlement is particularly remarkable in light of the
`
`litigation risks to Plaintiffs if these claims are not settled. It allows for robust Class Notice and
`
`permits Class Members to claim substantial monetary refunds ($1.00 to $33.00 per unit, depending
`
`on the size of the bottle). Class Members, in return, release their economic-loss claims (for which
`
`they are compensated under the Settlement) based on the alleged misrepresentations and omissions
`
`at issue, but they do not release any claims for personal injury—which claims are expressly
`
`preserved by the Settlement.
`
`For the reasons set forth below, the Settlement readily meets Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 23(e) and the Third Circuit’s standards for fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy under
`
`Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975) and Krell v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America (In
`
`re Prudential), 148 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 1998). Preliminary approval should be granted.
`
`A.
`
`Background and Procedural History
`
`FACTS
`
`Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint makes factual allegations and asserts legal theories
`
`
`amount available for each Product is shown in Paragraph E.1 of the Settlement Agreement. With
`the exception of the three largest concentrated Products, claims can be made without proof of
`purchase, but such claims are limited to one unit per year within the Class Period, with the
`exception of the three largest concentrated Products, which will require valid proof of purchase.
`For example, if a Claimant purchased a 1.33 gal. container of Roundup® Ready to Use Max
`Control 365 in California once a year since 2015, the refund amount could be $42.00 without proof
`of purchase. However, if the Class Member provides valid proof of purchase, he may claim an
`unlimited number of bottles of the Products. Claimants may be contacted by the Claims
`Administrator, in its discretion, and also required to provide a declaration signed under penalty of
`perjury that provides additional information to confirm that the proof of purchase is genuine and
`sufficient.
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01085-MN Document 25 Filed 06/14/21 Page 11 of 53 PageID #: 2326
`
`substantively identical to the allegations and claims asserted in more than a dozen actions
`
`prosecuted by Class Counsel, Plaintiffs’ Counsel,4 and their associates in federal and state courts
`
`around the country, against both Monsanto and large retailers of the Roundup® Products,
`
`beginning in July 2019. Plaintiffs in this case and the Related Actions allege that Monsanto’s
`
`glyphosate-containing Roundup® Products were improperly marketed and sold without disclosing
`
`that they may cause cancer and that Class Members who purchased those products therefore did
`
`not receive the benefit of their bargain. The litigation in the Related Actions—and particularly in
`
`the Ezcurra action—contributed significantly to the settlement in this matter.
`
`1.
`
`Allegations in the Actions
`
`This action and the Related Actions allege substantially similar claims asserting violations
`
`of state consumer-protection and false-advertising statutes related to the marketing and sale of
`
`Monsanto’s Roundup® Products without warning of their alleged carcinogenicity and health risks.
`
`These cases include various federal and state class actions against Monsanto and retailers that sell
`
`the Products, as well as individual state actions against retailers. With certain variations, these
`
`actions are based on the same core set of allegations related to the alleged health risks of the
`
`Products and glyphosate—the active ingredient in the Products. All the cases allege economic loss
`
`as a result of Monsanto’s failure to warn of the Products’ health risks on the Products’ labels or at
`
`the point of sale—alleging that but for the failure to disclose these risks, Plaintiffs here and in the
`
`Related Actions would not have purchased the products and/or paid more for the products than
`
`they otherwise would have.
`
`
`4 Plaintiffs’ Counsel means the following additional counsel for Plaintiffs: (1) Rhodunda Williams
`& Kondraschow, LLC; (2) The Law Offices of Howard Rubinstein; (3) Southern Atlantic Law
`Group, PLLC; (4) The Casey Law Firm, LLC; (5) Sheehan & Associates, P.C.; and Harrelson Law
`Firm, P.A. See Settlement Agreement ¶ A.39.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01085-MN Document 25 Filed 06/14/21 Page 12 of 53 PageID #: 2327
`
`Monsanto and the retailer-defendants have generally defended against these cases by
`
`pointing to scientific studies and repeated findings by EPA that glyphosate is not carcinogenic and
`
`does not pose any unreasonable risks to human health, that the product labels include all required
`
`information, and that cancer warnings on Roundup® Products are unwarranted and/or improper.
`
`In addition, the retailer-defendants have asserted (successfully in some cases) that they do not
`
`control the product labeling and/or do not have any independent duty to disclose. In many cases,
`
`Monsanto and retailers have argued that Plaintiffs’ claims seeking label changes or product bans
`
`are preempted by federal law because glyphosate-based herbicides, including all Roundup®
`
`Products at issue in these cases, have been repeatedly registered with EPA under the Federal
`
`Fungicide, Rodenticide, and Insecticide Registration Act (“FIFRA”), which strictly regulates the
`
`content of labeling for registered products and prohibits unapproved alterations to approved health
`
`and safety claims.
`
`2.
`
`The Ezcurra Action
`
`On February 19, 2020, Class Counsel and certain of Plaintiffs’ Counsel filed Ezcurra in the
`
`Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, seeking to
`
`represent a Florida class of Roundup® purchasers of the Roundup® Products.5 Ezcurra Compl.
`
`¶¶ 20-90. Monsanto removed the case to federal court on March 27, 2020, and moved to dismiss
`
`the Complaint on April 3, 2020. After several months of motion practice, the parties conducted a
`
`Rule 26(f) conference on May 4, 2020, filed a Joint Discovery Plan a week later, and commenced
`
`discovery.
`
`The parties exchanged Rule 26 initial disclosures on May 18, 2020, and exchanged written
`
`discovery between May and July 2020. Ezcurra served Monsanto with 13 interrogatories, 27
`
`
`5 Ezcurra et al v. Monsanto Co., No. 9:20-cv-80524 (S.D. Fla.) (filed Feb. 19, 2020), Compl.
`¶¶ 20-90.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01085-MN Document 25 Filed 06/14/21 Page 13 of 53 PageID #: 2328
`
`requests for admission, and 55 requests for production. Monsanto provided a total of 34 pages of
`
`interrogatory responses and 25 pages of admissions, and produced thousands of pages of
`
`documents, including sales data. Ezcurra issued a notice of deposition to Monsanto’s Global
`
`Packaging and Labeling Lead, Jerry Lambert, on June 5, 2020, and Monsanto issued a Notice of
`
`Deposition to Plaintiff Julio Ezcurra on August 3, 2020 to take his deposition on August 10, 2020.
`
`Class Counsel also retained Dr. D.C. Sharp, Ph.D., an economic expert and formerly
`
`tenured Associate Professor of Economics and Business Advisory Council Research Professor at
`
`the University of Southern Mississippi. D.C. Sharp Expert Report ¶¶ 4-5. Dr. Sharp analyzed over
`
`2,000 pages of written discovery materials, over 30 scholarly publications and EPA reports, and
`
`prior motions practice to prepare a hedonic-regression analysis estimating the impact of the alleged
`
`failure to warn of Roundup’s cancer risk. Id. App. B. Dr. Sharp compiled and analyzed a dataset
`
`of prices and product attributes of various non-selective, non-crop herbicides sold by Home Depot,
`
`Lowe’s, Ace Hardware, and Tractor Supply Company to Florida consumers. Id. ¶ 20. The dataset
`
`captured 282 prices pertaining to 177 unique products from 29 different brands. Id. ¶ 22. Dr.
`
`Sharp’s report concluded that consumers had paid a price premium of 31 percent more than what
`
`they would have been willing to pay for a similar product that disclosed a carcinogenic active
`
`ingredient. Id. ¶¶ 28-31.
`
`While the parties were engaged in discovery, Monsanto’s motion to dismiss was pending
`
`before the court. Monsanto moved to dismiss on several grounds, including that (1) Gilmore’s
`
`state-law claims were preempted; (2) the Roundup® Products’ labeling is presumptively lawful
`
`because of EPA’s repeated approval of such without a cancer warning, and the plaintiff had alleged
`
`no facts to overcome that presumption; (3) the plaintiff lacked Article III standing to bring claims
`
`relating to products he did not purchase; (4) the plaintiff lacked standing to seek declaratory or
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01085-MN Document 25 Filed 06/14/21 Page 14 of 53 PageID #: 2329
`
`injunctive relief because he alleged that he would not purchase Roundup® Products in the future;
`
`and (5) Ezcurra’s state-law claims were barred by Florida’s “safe harbor” provision for actions
`
`required or permitted by regulatory authorities. Def. Monsanto Co.’s Mot. to Dismiss (ECF 35) at
`
`1-3, 11-17, 18, 19-20, Ezcurra v. Monsanto Co., No. 9:20-cv-80524-DMM (S.D. Fla.); Def.
`
`Monsanto Co.’s Supp. Br. Regarding FDUTPA Safe Harbor (ECF 55), Ezcurra, No. 9:20-cv-
`
`80524-DMM.
`
`On August 6, 2020—following a lengthy hearing and a round of supplemental briefing
`
`ordered by the court—Monsanto’s motion to dismiss was granted, solely on the final ground,
`
`agreeing that FDUTPA’s safe harbor provision barred Plaintiff’s state-law claims because the
`
`Roundup® labels were specifically permitted by federal and state law. Ezcurra v. Monsanto Co.,
`
`2020 WL 5491428, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2020). The court did not accept or reject Monsanto’s
`
`other arguments for dismissal—it ruled only on the safe harbor argument, which it concluded was
`
`dispositive. Id. at *1 & n.1. Ezcurra filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
`
`the Eleventh Circuit challenging the court’s dismissal order. That appeal has been fully briefed
`
`since March 8, 2021, and is scheduled for oral argument in September.
`
`While the Ezcurra case remains pending on appeal, the parties have relied on the discovery
`
`record developed in Ezcurra in reaching the instant Settlement.
`
`3.
`
`The Related Actions
`
`Given the substantial number of Related Actions, for purposes of brevity, this Motion does
`
`not detail their procedural histories. Attached hereto as Appendix A is a chart summarizing each
`
`case’s procedural history. See Lamerson v. Walmart Stores, Inc., No. 50-2019-CC-009139 (Cnty.
`
`Ct. 15th Cir. in and for Palm Beach Cnty., Fla.) (filed July 15, 2019); Shelly v. Target Corp.,
`
`No. 50-2019-CC-010718 (Cnty. Ct. 15th Cir. in and for Palm Beach Cnty., Fla.) (filed Aug. 14,
`
`2019); Biddle v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs. LLC, No. 50-2019-CC-011405 (Cnty. Ct. 15th Cir. in and for
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01085-MN Document 25 Filed 06/14/21 Page 15 of 53 PageID #: 2330
`
`Palm Beach Cnty., Fla.) (filed Aug. 27, 2019); Morley v. Ace Hardware Corp.,
`
`No. CONO-19-010648 (Cnty. Ct. 17th Cir. in and for Broward Cnty., Fla.) (filed Sept. 6, 2019);
`
`Waters v. Home Depot USA, Inc., No. 50-2019-CC-009140 (Cnty. Ct. 15th Cir. in and for Palm
`
`Beach Cnty., Fla.) (filed July 15, 2019); Fagundes v. The Home Depot, No. 0:20-cv-61035 (S.D.
`
`Fla.) (filed Mar. 21, 2020); Hanna et al v. Walmart, Inc., CIV SB 2100789 (Super. Ct. Cal. for San
`
`Bernardino) (filed Jan. 12, 2021) (“Hanna II”); Gregorio et al v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
`
`No. CACE-21-002428 (Cnty. Ct. 17th Cir. in and for Broward Cnty., Fla.) (filed Feb. 4, 2021);
`
`Weeks et al v. Lo