throbber

`
`
`
`
`
`Nos. 20-3663, 20-3665
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the
`Eighth Circuit
`JOHN S. HAHN,
`Special Master,
`BADER FARMS, INC.,
`Plaintiff-Appellee,
`BILL BADER,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`vs.
`MONSANTO COMPANY,
`Defendant-Appellant,
`BASF CORPORATION,
`Defendant-Appellant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On Appeal from the Unites States District Court
`for the Eastern District of Missouri, No. 1:16-cv-00299-SNLJ
`The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., District Judge
`
`PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE BADER FARMS, INC.’S ANSWER BRIEF
`IN NOS. 20-3663, 20-3665
`
`
`
`Billy R. Randles
`Beverly T. Randles
`Angela M. Splittgerber
`RANDLES & SPLITTGERBER, LLP
`5823 N. Cypress Ave.
`Kansas City, Missouri 64119
`Tel. (816) 744-4779
`
`Dated: May 5, 2021
`
`Tracey F. George
`L. Benjamin Mook
`DAVIS GEORGE MOOK LLC
`1600 Genessee, Ste. 328
`Kansas City, MO 64102
`Tel. (816) 569-2629
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff-
`Appellee Bader Farms, Inc.
`
`Appellate Case: 20-3663 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Entry ID: 5032341
`
`

`

`SUMMARY OF THE CASE
`
`Monsanto and BASF negligently commercialized their dicamba-
`
`tolerant (“Xtend”) crop system knowing farmers would spray deadly, off-
`
`label dicamba in 2015-2016 and even “lower-volatility” dicamba would cause
`
`massive off-target injury in 2017-present. Defendants did so “with the
`
`expectation” this damage to farmers would help them sell more product. As
`
`a result, Bader Farms’ peach orchards were (and are) pummeled each year
`
`with dicamba sprayed over Xtend crops, costing millions in lost profits and
`
`rendering the peach operations unsustainable.
`
`After a three-week trial, Plaintiff submitted negligent design and
`
`failure to warn claims. The jury, correctly instructed with Missouri Approved
`
`Instructions, awarded Plaintiff $15 million in compensatory and $250
`
`million in punitive damages and found Defendants acted in a joint venture
`
`and conspiracy. In an 88-page, post-trial order, the District Court rejected
`
`Defendants’ arguments raised on appeal (reducing only punitive damages to
`
`$60 million).
`
`Thirty minutes per side is adequate argument given the District Court’s
`
`exhaustive analysis. Plaintiff requests equal time to Defendants’ combined
`
`allotment because they appeal the same issues but divide responsibility for
`
`the arguments.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Appellate Case: 20-3663 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Entry ID: 5032341
`
`

`

`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and Eighth
`
`Circuit Local Rule 26.1A, Plaintiff-Appellee Bader Farms, Inc. (“Bader
`
`Farms”), a non-governmental entity, states that Bader Farms has no parent
`
`company, no subsidiary that is not wholly owned, and no publicly held
`
`company owns 10 percent or more of its stock.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Appellate Case: 20-3663 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Entry ID: 5032341
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`SUMMARY OF THE CASE
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF AUTHORTIES
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`1. Dicamba.
`2. Defendants Jointly Created A Dicamba-Tolerant
`System.
`3. Defendants Ignored Warnings Against A
`Dicamba-Tolerant System.
`4. Monsanto Concealed Dicamba Dangers.
`5. Defendants Knew Farmers Would Spray Off-
`Label.
`6. Defendants Adopted “Defensive Planting” Sales
`Strategies.
`7. Monsanto Refused To Enforce Its Grower
`License To Prevent Off-Label Spraying.
`8. Defendants Turned A Blind Eye, And A Dicamba
`Bomb Exploded.
`a. Monsanto Ignored Off-Label Spraying And
`Damage Reports.
`b. Monsanto Denied Responsibility And Deflected
`Blame.
`9. Defendants’ Completed System Improved
`Nothing, Defendants Blamed Farmers.
`
`ii
`iii
`iv
`viii
`1
`1
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`6
`
`6
`
`8
`
`9
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Appellate Case: 20-3663 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Entry ID: 5032341
`
`

`

`10. Bader Farms’ Orchards Are Unsustainable In A
`Sea Of Dicamba.
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`STANDARDS OF REVIEW
`ARGUMENT
`I. DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENT COMMERCIALIZATION
`OF THEIR DICAMBA-TOLERANT SYSTEM CAUSED
`BADER FARMS INJURY.
`A. Defendants Proximately Caused Bader Farms’
`Injury.
`1.
`Third-Party Dicamba Misuse Was
`Foreseeable.
`2. Defendants’ So-Called “Warnings” Do Not
`Negate Foreseeability.
`3. Monsanto Was Not Entitled To An
`Intervening, Superseding Cause
`Instruction.
`B. Defendants’ Negligent Conduct Caused
`Plaintiff’s Damage.
`1. Releasing Xtend Was Negligent.
`2. Defendants’ Spuriously Deny A “Dicamba-
`Tolerant System.”
`II. MISSOURI LAW ALLOWS BADER FARMS TO
`RECOVER LOST PROFITS.
`A. The “Diminution-In-Land-Value” Method Is
`Inapplicable.
`B. The District Court Correctly Applied Missouri
`Law Allowing Lost-Profit Recovery.
`
`9
`
`12
`16
`17
`17
`
`17
`
`17
`
`22
`
`23
`
`25
`
`25
`30
`
`31
`
`31
`
`34
`
`
`
`v
`
`Appellate Case: 20-3663 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Entry ID: 5032341
`
`

`

`3.
`
`C. Substantial Evidence And Expert Testimony
`Support The Jury’s Damage Award.
`1.
`Extensive Evidence Supported Bader
`Farms’ Historical And Projected Peach
`Profits.
`2. Dr. Guenthner’s Calculations Are Not
`Speculative.
`The Jury Weighed Defendants’ Competing
`Evidence And Arguments To Determine
`Damages.
`III. JOINT VENTURE AND CONSPIRACY.
`A. Defendants Acted In A Joint Venture.
`1. Missouri Joint Venture Law.
`2. Defendants’ Disclaimers In Some (But Not
`All) Of Their Contracts Are Not Dispositive.
`Sufficient Evidence Proves Joint Venture.
`Community of Pecuniary Interest.
`Shared Control.
`B. Defendants Acted In A Conspiracy.
`C.
`Joint Venture And Conspiracy Claims Are Not
`Inconsistent Claims.
`IV. PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE WARRANTED AND
`COMPORT WITH DUE PROCESS.
`A. Missouri Law Allows Punitive Damages Here.
`1. Monsanto’s Reckless Disregard Was
`Outrageous.
`2. Lopez Factors Do Not Favor Monsanto.
`
`3.
`
`37
`
`38
`
`39
`
`40
`
`42
`42
`42
`42
`
`43
`43
`47
`48
`49
`
`50
`
`50
`51
`
`52
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Appellate Case: 20-3663 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Entry ID: 5032341
`
`

`

`Factor 1—“Prior similar occurrences
`known to the defendant have been
`infrequent.”
`Factor 2—“The injurious event was unlikely
`to have occurred absent negligence on the
`part of someone other than defendant.”
`Factor 3—“Defendant did not knowingly
`violate a statute, regulation, or clear
`industry standard designed to prevent the
`type of injury that occurred.”
`B. The Punitive Award Comports With Due
`Process.
`1. Gore’s Guideposts Support The Award.
`2. Monsanto’s Net Worth Is Relevant.
`V. BASF IS JOINTLY LIABLE FOR PUNITIVE
`DAMAGES.
`A. Missouri Law Imposes Joint Liability.
`B. There Is No Federal Due Process Violation.
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`52
`
`52
`
`53
`
`55
`
`56
`65
`65
`
`65
`68
`70
`71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Appellate Case: 20-3663 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Entry ID: 5032341
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Cases
`
`Accord Ford v. Monroe,
` 559 S.W.2d 759 (Mo. App. 1977) .............................................................. 18
`
`Adeli v. Silverstar Auto., Inc.
` 960 F.3d 452 (8th Cir. 2020) .................................................................. 59
`
`Alcorn v. Union Pacific Railroad Company,
` 50 S.W.3d 226 (Mo. banc 2001) ......................................................... 14, 54
`
`Am. River Transp. Co. v. Paragon Marine Servs.,
` 213 F. Supp. 2d 1035 (E.D. Mo. 2002) ..................................................... 19
`
`Ameristar Jet Charter, Inc. v. Dodson Int'l Parts, Inc.,
`
`155 S.W.3d 50 (Mo. banc 2005) ......................................................... 36-37
`
`Ashley Cnty. v. Pfizer,
` 552 F.3d 659 (8th Cir. 2009) .............................................................. 20-21
`
`Barnes v. Arkansas-Missouri Power Co.,
` 281 S.W. 93 (Mo. App. 1926) ................................................................... 34
`
`Bauer v. Curators of Univ. of Mo.,
` 680 F.3d 1043 (8th Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 23
`
`Bening v. Muegler,
` 67 F.3d 691 (8th Cir. 1995) ...................................................................... 24
`
`Blaes v. Johnson & Johnson,
`71 F.Supp.3d 944 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 4, 2014) ............................................. 49
`
`
`Blanks v. Fluor Corp.,
` 450 S.W.3d 308 (Mo. App. 2014) ........................................... 15, 27, 29, 66
`
`Blevins v. Cushman Motors,
` 551 S.W.2d 602 (Mo. 1977) ................................................................. 27-28
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`Appellate Case: 20-3663 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Entry ID: 5032341
`
`

`

`Blue v. Rose,
`
`786 F.2d 349 (8th Cir. 1986) ................................................................... 66
`
`BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore,
` 517 U.S. 559 (1996) ........................................................................ 14, 55-57
`
`Boerner v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co.,
` 394 F.3d 594 (8th Cir. 2005) .............................................................. 62-63
`
`Boggs and Beaty v. N. W. Elec. Power Co-op, Inc.,
` 312 S.W.2d 369 (Mo. App. 1958) ............................................................. 35
`
`Boggs v. Mo.-Kan.-Tx. Ry. Co.,
` 80 S.W.2d 141 (Mo. 1934) ....................................................................... 35
`
`Brown v. Davis,
` 813 F.3d 1130 (8th Cir. 2016) ................................................................... 17
`
`Burg v. Dampier,
` 346 S.W.3d 343 (Mo. App. 2011) ............................................................. 67
`
`Burnett v. Griffith,
`
`769 S.W.2d 780 (Mo. banc 1989) ............................................................. 51
`
`Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hosp.,
` 863 S.W.2d 852 (Mo. 1993) ................................................................ 17, 27
`
`City of Chi. v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.,
` 821 N.E.2d 10+A23:A9599, 1121 (Ill. 2004) .................................... 20 fn 3
`
`City of St. Louis v. Benjamin Moore & Co.,
` 226 S.W.3d 110 (Mo. 2007) .............................................. 12, 25-26, 28-29
`
`Clark v. Chrysler Corp.,
` 436 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2006) .................................................................... 61
`
`Cooley v. Kansas City, P. & G.R. Co.,
` 51 S.W. 101 (Mo. 1899) ........................................................... 32-33, 35, 40
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`Appellate Case: 20-3663 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Entry ID: 5032341
`
`

`

`Couch v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.,
`
`158 S.W. 347 (Mo. 1913) .......................................................................... 35
`
`Davidson v. Besser Co.,
`
`70 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (E.D. Mo. 1999) ....................................................... 18
`
`Denny v. Guyton,
` 40 S.W.2d 562 (Mo. banc 1931) .......................................................... 13, 42
`
`Eden Elec., Ltd. v. Amana Co.,
` 370 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 2004) ............................................................. 62-63
`
`Emmons v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operation, LLC, et al.,
` No. 1:10-CV-41-JAR, 2012 WL 6200411 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 12, 2012) ........ 28
`
`Finochio v. Mahler,
` 37 S.W.3d 300 (Mo. App. 2000) .............................................................. 19
`
`First Nat'l Bank v. Goodnight,
`
`721 S.W.2d 122 (Mo. App. 1986) ......................................................... 18-19
`
`Gaines-Tabb v. ICI Explosives USA,
` 995 F. Supp. 1304 (W.D. Okla. 1996) ............................................... 20 fn 3
`
`Gateway Foam Insulators, Inc. v. Jokerst Paving & Contracting, Inc.,
` 279 S.W.3d 179 (Mo. banc 2009) ................................................ 36, 38, 40
`
`Gettings v. Farr,
` 41 S.W.3d 539 (Mo. App. 2001) .......................................................... 48-49
`
`Gibson v. Brewer,
` 952 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. banc 1997) ............................................................ 48
`
`Grabinski v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc.,
` 203 F.3d 1024 (8th Cir. 2000) ................................................................. 61
`
`Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Monitor Clipper Partners, LLC,
`
`758 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. 2014) .................................................................. 50
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`Appellate Case: 20-3663 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Entry ID: 5032341
`
`

`

`Harris v. Hillvale Holdings, LLC,
` No. 4:15-CV-1854-RLW, 2016 WL 3194364 (E.D. Mo. June 6, 2016) .... 19
`
`Hiers v. Lemley,
` 834 S.W.2d 729 (Mo. banc 1992) ............................................................ 24
`
`Hillme v. Chastain,
`
`75 S.W.3d 315 (Mo. App. 2002) .............................................................. 43
`
`Hopkins v. Chip-In-Saw, Inc.,
` 630 F.2d 616 (8th Cir. 1980) ................................................................... 27
`
`Hunt v. Nebraska Pub. Power Dist.,
` 282 F.3d 1021 (8th Cir. 2002) ........................................................... 16, 40
`
`In re Genetically Modified Rice Litigation,
` 4:06-MD-1811-CDP, 2010 WL 4643265 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 9, 2010) .... 36-37
`
`JCB, Inc. v. Union Planters Bank, NA,
` 539 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2008) ............................................................. 55, 61
`
`Jeff-Cole Quarries, Inc. v. Bell,
` 454 S.W.2d 5 (Mo. 1970) .................................................................... 42-44
`
`Johnson v. Medtronic, Inc.,
` 365 S.W.3d 226 (Mo. App. 2012) ............................................................ 22
`
`Keenan v. Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc.,
`
`13 F.3d 1266 (8th Cir. 1994) .................................................................... 16
`
`Keller Farms, Inc. v. McGarity Flying Serv., LLC,
` 944 F.3d 975 (8th Cir. 2019) ................................................................... 33
`
`Klingenberg v. Vulcan Ladder USA, LLC,
` 936 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 2019) ................................................................... 16
`
`Koon v. Walden,
` 539 S.W.3d 752 (Mo. App. 2017) ........................................................ 52-53
`
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`Appellate Case: 20-3663 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Entry ID: 5032341
`
`

`

`Lasley v. Running Supply, Inc.,
` 670 F. App'x 910 (8th Cir. 2016) ............................................................. 23
`
`Linden v. CNH Am., LLC,
` 673 F.3d 829 (8th Cir. 2012) .............................................................. 23, 31
`
`Lockhart v. U.S.,
` 834 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2016) ................................................................... 24
`
`Lompe v. Sunridge Partners, LLC,
` 818 F.3d 1041 (10th Cir. 2016) ................................................................. 61
`
`Long v. Cottrell, Inc.,
` 265 F.3d 663 (8th Cir. 2001) ................................................................... 28
`
`Lopez v. Three Rivers Elec. Co-op, Inc.,
` 26 S.W.3d 151 (Mo. banc 2000) .............................................. 14, 17, 52-54
`
`Martin v. Survivair Respirators, Inc.,
` 298 S.W3d 23 (Mo. App. 2009) ......................................................... 26-27
`
`Matthews v. Missouri P.R. Co.,
` 44 S.W. 802 (Mo. 1898) ............................................................... 31-32, 35
`
`May v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp.,
`
`129 A.3d 984, 1000 (Md. 2015) ............................................................... 30
`
`May v. Nationstar Mortg.,
` 852 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2017) ....................................... 50-51, 55-56, 58, 65
`
`Metts v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp,
` 618 S.W.2d 698 (Mo. App. 1981) ............................................................. 50
`
`Mitchell v. Volkswagenwerk, AG,
` 669 F.2d 1199 (8th Cir. 1982) .................................................................. 60
`
`Morse v. S. Union Co.,
`
`174 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 1999) ..................................................................... 65
`
`
`
`
`
`xii
`
`Appellate Case: 20-3663 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Entry ID: 5032341
`
`

`

`Mouser v. Caterpillar, Inc., et al.,
` No. 4:98CV744 FRB, 2000 WL 35552637 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 6, 2000) ...... 29
`
`Ondrisek v. Hoffman,
` 698 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2012) ............................................................ 62-63
`
`Park Ridge Associates v. U.M.B. Bank,
` 613 S.W.3d 456 (Mo. App. 2020) ............................................................ 49
`
`Pigg v. Bridges,
` 352 S.W.2d 28 (Mo. banc 1961) ............................................................... 46
`
`Poage v. Crane Co.,
` 523 S.W.3d 496 (Mo. App. 2017) ............................................................. 51
`
`Pulla v. Amoco Oil Co.,
`
`72 F.3d 648 (8th Cir. 1995) ..................................................................... 59
`
`Quigley v. Winter,
` 598 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2010) ........................................................ 61-62, 64
`
`Racicky v. Farmland Indus., Inc.,
` 328 F.3d 389 (8th Cir. 2003) ................................................................... 37
`
`Ritter v. BJC Barnes Jewish Christian Health Sys.,
` 987 S.W.2d 377 (Mo. App. 1999) ................................................. 42, 45, 47
`
`Scheibel v. Hillis,
` 531 S.W.2d 285 (Mo. banc 1976) ......................................................... 18-19
`
`Schmidt v. Ramsey,
` 860 F.3d 1038 (8th Cir. 2017) ................................................................. 68
`
`Shady Valley Park & Pool v. Fred Weber, Inc.,
` 913 S.W.2d 28 (Mo. App. 1995) .......................................................... 34-35
`
`Shaka Movement v. County of Maui,
` 842 F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................................................... 54
`
`
`
`
`
`xiii
`
`Appellate Case: 20-3663 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Entry ID: 5032341
`
`

`

`Slidell, Inc. v. Millennium Inorganic Chems., Inc.,
` 460 F.3d 1047 (8th Cir. 2006) ................................................................ 23
`
`Sperry v. Bauermeister, Inc.,
` 804 F. Supp. 1134 (E.D. Mo. 1992) ........................................................... 31
`
`Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants Prods. Liab. Litig.,
` 97 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 1996) ..................................................................... 31
`
`Thompson v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
` 207 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. App. 2006) .............................................................. 28
`
`TooBaRoo, LLC v. W. Robidoux, Inc.,
` 614 S.W.3d 29 (Mo. App. 2020) ......................................................... 46-47
`
`Trickey v. Kaman Indus. Techs. Corp.,
`705 F.3d 788 (8th Cir. 2013) ............................................................. 56, 65
`
`
`Tubbs v. BNSF Ry. Co., Inc.,
` 562 S.W.3d 323 (Mo. App. 2018) ................................................. 51-52, 54
`
`TXO Prod. Corp. v. All. Res. Corp.,
` 509 U.S. 443 (1993) ........................................................................... 59, 62
`
`United States v. Barrera,
` 628 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir. 2011) .................................................................. 57
`
`United States v. Krug,
` 822 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 2016) ................................................................... 50
`
`Vogt v. State Farm Life Ins. Co.,
` 963 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 2020) ................................................................... 45
`
`Volume Services, Inc., v. C.F. Murphy & Associates, Inc.,
` 656 S.W.2d 785 (Mo. App. 1983) ............................................................ 36
`
`Wagner v. Bondex Int’l, Inc.,
` 368 S.W.3d 340 (Mo. App. 2012) ....................................................... 29-30
`
`
`
`
`
`xiv
`
`Appellate Case: 20-3663 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Entry ID: 5032341
`
`

`

`Wallace v. DTG Operations, Inc.,
` 563 F.3d 357 (8th Cir. 2009) .............................................................. 61-62
`
`Wandersee v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc.,
` 263 S.W.3d 623 (Mo. 2008) ......................................................... 37-38, 40
`
`Washington University v. Aalco Wrecking Co., Inc.,
` 487 S.W.2d 487 (Mo. 1972) ..................................................................... 32
`
`Western Blue Print Co., LLC v. Roberts,
` 367 S.W.3d 7 (Mo. banc 2012) ................................................................. 48
`
`Wiles v. Capitol Indemnity Corp.,
` 280 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2002) ................................................................. 49
`
`Williams v. ConAgra Poultry Co.,
` 378 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2004) ................................................................... 57
`
`Winter v. Novartis Pharms. Corp.,
`739 F.3d 405 (8th Cir. 2014) .............................................................. 17, 22
`
`
`Winter v. Novartis Pharms. Corp.,
` 882 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (W.D. Mo. 2012) .................................................... 22
`
`Woodbury v. Courtyard Mgmt. Corp.,
`Case No. 4:11-CV-1049 (CEJ), 2013 WL 4401822 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 14,
`2013) ......................................................................................................... 18
`
`
`Zafft v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`676 S.W.2d 241 (Mo. 1984) ..................................................... 15-26, 28-29
`
`
`Statutes
`
`Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.067 ............................................................................... 67
`
`Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.353 ............................................................................... 64
`
`Mo. Rev. Stat. § 358.130 ............................................................................... 60
`
`
`
`
`
`xv
`
`Appellate Case: 20-3663 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Entry ID: 5032341
`
`

`

`Rules
`
`Eighth Circuit Local Rule 26.1A .................................................................... iii
`
`Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 ..................................................... iii
`
`Jury Instructions
`
`Missouri Approved Instruction 1.03 ............................................................ 24
`
`Missouri Approved Instruction 4.01 ................................................. 13, 35, 41
`
`Missouri Approved Instruction 25.09 .......................................................... 24
`
`Missouri Approved Instruction 33.05(1) ................................................ 24-25
`
`Treatises
`
`Restatement (Second) of Torts § 876(a), Comment C ................................. 48
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xvi
`
`Appellate Case: 20-3663 Page: 16 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Entry ID: 5032341
`
`

`

`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Until 2015, Bader Farms was Missouri’s largest peach producer,
`
`
`
`generating millions of dollars in annual sales, supplying grocers in eight
`
`states. DEFSAppx-653; PLAppx-134-135. That forever changed when
`
`Defendants commercialized their dicamba-tolerant system.
`
`1. Dicamba.
`
`Dicamba is a deadly, volatile herbicide, historically used in pastures
`
`and cereal crops during colder-weather months when sensitive vegetation is
`
`not growing. DEFSAppx-499-502.
`
`Before Defendants’ dicamba-tolerant system, dicamba use
`
`in
`
`Missouri’s Bootheel was minimal because it has little pasture or corn but
`
`grows a lot of dicamba-sensitive soybean and cotton (the dominant crops
`
`surrounding Bader Farms). DEFSAppx-503; PLAppx-220. Dicamba was
`
`not used as a standalone, foundational herbicide. DEFSAppx-514-515. Off-
`
`target dicamba complaints were virtually nonexistent. DEFSAppx-503-504.
`
`2. Defendants Jointly Created A Dicamba-Tolerant
`System.
`
`Monsanto owns the dicamba-tolerant seed trait. PLAppx-279. BASF
`
`owns the dicamba-herbicide molecule. PLAppx-383-387. Together, they
`
`
`
`1
`
`Appellate Case: 20-3663 Page: 17 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Entry ID: 5032341
`
`

`

`developed and commercialized a dicamba-tolerant crop system. BASF told
`
`EPA:
`
`BASF and Monsanto Corporations are engaged in a joint
`venture ... Together the companies have combined their
`expertise in crop and dicamba herbicide technologies to bring
`about an effective foolproof system for growing soybeans
`and cotton.
`
`PLAppx-355-356 (emphasis supplied).
`
`Defendants entered numerous agreements, spanning over a decade,
`
`regarding their dicamba-tolerant system. DEFSAppx-1247-1293, 1312-1378;
`
`PLAppx-265, 373-377. They created joint development, regulatory, and
`
`commercialization work groups, with equal vote and governance.
`
`DEFSAppx-738-739; PLAppx-270-271, 293-299.
`
`Defendants’ dicamba-tolerant system allowed never-before-possible,
`
`over-the-top dicamba spraying on soy and cotton crops in warm, summer
`
`months—use that previously would have killed the crops. PLAppx-17, 39-40.
`
`Xtend technology exponentially increased the scope and scale of dicamba use
`
`in Southeast Missouri. DEFSAppx-513-516.
`
`3. Defendants Ignored Warnings Against A Dicamba-
`Tolerant System.
`Employees, industry stakeholders, and academics warned Defendants
`
`against commercializing a dicamba-tolerant system. Monsanto’s regulatory
`
`employee cautioned Monsanto would be “defending dicamba” in courts due
`
`
`
`2
`
`Appellate Case: 20-3663 Page: 18 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Entry ID: 5032341
`
`

`

`to “drift and volatilization to nearby crops.” PLAppx-337-338. Monsanto’s
`
`Dicamba Advisory Council (“DAC”), which BASF participated in, warned,
`
`“The economic damage could be significant,” “which could force sensitive
`
`crop growers to quit growing sensitive crops if the damage/potential was
`
`severe enough.” PLAppx-19-22. DAC member, Steve Smith of Red Gold
`
`Tomatoes, repeatedly warned a dicamba-tolerant system was “the most
`
`serious threat to specialty crops of anything [he] had seen during [his] time
`
`working with specialty crops.” PLAppx-6-7. Monsanto removed him from the
`
`DAC and told members he “resigned.” PLAppx-8-11. Academics warned:
`
`“DON’T DO IT; Expect lawsuits.” PLAppx-335.
`
`4. Monsanto Concealed Dicamba Dangers.
`Monsanto blocked academic volatility testing to avoid bad results and
`
`“keep a clean slate” with EPA. PLAppx-15-16, 89-93, 332. Monsanto
`
`prohibited employees from spraying dicamba, pulled all field tests in 2015 to
`
`avoid off-target-injury “baggage,” and only performed small-plot tests
`
`because “that eliminates some of the risk of off-target movement.” PLAppx-
`
`91-95, 332-334.
`
`Monsanto actively concealed dicamba dangers:
`
`Dicamba is under a great degree of scrutiny by the EPA right
`now… As such, top management in Regulatory and Legal have
`taken steps to prevent off-site movement of dicamba while the
`
`
`
`3
`
`Appellate Case: 20-3663 Page: 19 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Entry ID: 5032341
`
`

`

`EPA is reviewing our data submissions. This includes a
`moratorium on testing our lead formulations(.)
`PLAppx-336.
`
`Monsanto asked BASF to limit academic testing to avoid “results that
`
`could negatively impact EPA’s registration decision.” PLAppx-121-122, 382.
`
`5. Defendants Knew Farmers Would Spray Off-Label.
`In 2015, after EPA refused to register BASF’s Clarity (older, already-
`
`on-the-market dicamba) for use over Xtend crops due to safety concerns,
`
`Monsanto launched an incomplete dicamba-tolerant system, with no
`
`approved dicamba, knowing farmers would spray off-label. PLAppx-85, 120,
`
`381; DEFSAppx-248-249
`
`In its launch-decision meeting, Monsanto analyzed the risks: On a slide
`
`entitled “Reconfirm Support to Launch without Dicamba Label,” the “Risks”
`
`included “Growers make off-label applications of dicamba.” PLAppx-42-43;
`
`DEFSAppx1220-1222. Monsanto acknowledged “Grower[s] are expecting
`
`ability to use dicamba” and, in red lettering, “50% indicate intent to use
`
`OTT.” DEFSAppx1224. Monsanto launched anyway. PLAppx-84.
`
`Launch-meeting participants mocked Monsanto’s recklessness, calling
`
`themselves “renegades that launch a technology without a label and think[]
`
`one sticker is going to keep us out of jail.” PLAppx-343. Monsanto knew its
`
`
`
`4
`
`Appellate Case: 20-3663 Page: 20 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Entry ID: 5032341
`
`

`

`“pink sticker” was worthless because it omitted the dangers of over-the-top
`
`dicamba and off-target injury. PLAppx-12-13.
`
`As expected, off-label-dicamba use was pervasive: BASF told
`
`Monsanto it was “widespread” in 2015 and “will be rampant in 2016.”
`
`PLAppx-44-45, 312; DEFSAppx-246-247, 249. Monsanto did nothing to
`
`evaluate off-label use in 2015 or to prevent its recurrence in 2016. PLAppx-
`
`46-47; DEFSAppx-253, 258.
`
`6. Defendants Adopted “Defensive Planting” Sales
`Strategies.
`Defendants counted on damage from off-label spraying to drive sales
`
`(“defensive planting”). Monsanto developed a “Protection from your
`
`neighbor” strategy to convince disinterested farmers to buy Xtend seed.
`
`PLAppx-32-37, 305.
`
`BASF expected off-label spraying but chose to “get behind” the system
`
`and promote Xtend seed, as it was important to BASF’s bottom line.
`
`PLAppx-363-364. In 2015, BASF “scaled up” Clarity production knowing
`
`Xtend growers would be “tempted to use dicamba illegally.” PLAppx-384,
`
`387. Clarity sales spiked, from approximately $60 million to $100 million in
`
`2016, due to “increased demand” from the Xtend-seed launch. PLAppx-116-
`
`118, 391-393.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Appellate Case: 20-3663 Page: 21 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Entry ID: 5032341
`
`

`

`BASF’s “Strategic Update” listed “Defensive Planting” as its “Potential
`
`Market Opportunity.” PLAppx-353-354. Publicly, BASF denied considering
`
`“defensive planting” in its sales strategies. PLAppx-350-351.
`
`Internally, Monsanto circulated “interesting market research,”
`
`reporting “defensive planting” drove “rapid adoption” of Xtend seed in 2016.
`
`PLAppx-78-79, 326-329.
`
`7. Monsanto Refused To Enforce Its Grower License To
`Prevent Off-Label Spraying.
`Every Xtend-seed grower must have a license from Monsanto and
`
`agree to technology use terms (“TUG”). PLAppx-67. Monsanto writes the
`
`TUG, controlling how growers use its products. Id. Monsanto can refuse to
`
`sell to growers or revoke their licenses for violating the TUG—something
`
`Monsanto does when necessary to protect its own profitability. DEFSAppx-
`
`267-268.
`
`Monsanto refused to pull licenses from Xtend growers who sprayed
`
`off-label dicamba because such enforcement would hurt its sales. PLAppx-
`
`23-31, 300-301. Monsanto took no action to stop off-label spraying, no
`
`matter how egregious the violation. DEFSAppx-346.
`
`8. Defendants Turned A Blind Eye, And A Dicamba
`Bomb Exploded.
`a. Monsanto Ignored Off-Label Spraying And Damage
`Reports.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Appellate Case: 20-3663 Page: 22 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Entry ID: 5032341
`
`

`

`Monsanto’s policy was to not investigate off-label-dicamba use or
`
`damage in 2015-2016. DEFSAppx-250; PLAppx-85. Monsanto knew
`
`Bootheel-area farmers were spraying off-label dicamba over Xtend crops in
`
`2015 and 2016 and observed off-target damage; however, Monsanto did
`
`nothing following 2015 to avoid a 2016 recurrence. PLAppx-99-103.
`
`Consequently, in July 2016, BASF reported:
`
`The one thing most acres of beans have in common is dicamba
`damage. There must be a huge cloud of dicamba
`blanketing the Missouri Bootheel. That ticking time
`bomb finally exploded! The scope of the damage is on a
`massive scale…
`
`PLAppx-394 (emphasis supplied).
`
`That month, Monsanto learned of 115 off-target-dicamba complaints
`
`in the Bootheel. DEFSAppx-265-266; PLAppx-50, 348-349. Rather than
`
`investigate or assist injured farmers, Monsanto sent one of its seed growers
`
`to extol Xtend at an open forum. PLAppx-50-55. Monsanto learned four
`
`large growers were primary sources of off-target damage in the Bootheel but
`
`did nothing. PLAppx-55-58.
`
`In August 2016, EPA issued a Compliance Advisory entitled “High
`
`Number of Complaints Related to Alleged Misuse of Dicamba Raises
`
`Concerns.” PLAppx-60, 314-315. Monsanto learned: “To date the Missouri
`
`Department of Agriculture has received approximately 117 complaints
`
`
`
`7
`
`Appellate Case: 20-3663 Page: 23 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Entry ID: 5032341
`
`

`

`alleging misuse of pesticide products containing dicamba.” PLAppx-59-60,
`
`314-315. Missouri’s crop damage estimates topped 42,000 acres. PLAppx-
`
`61-62, 314-315.
`
`Monsanto still did not investigate or take any remedial measures.
`
`PLAppx-62-63. When Bill Bader implored Monsanto to investigate dicamba
`
`damage ravaging Bader Farms’ orchards in 2015 and 2016, Monsanto
`
`refused. PLAppx-83.
`
`b. Monsanto Denied Responsibility And Deflected
`Blame.
`Instead of helping farmers, Monsanto decided to “get on this right
`
`now!” and “deny! Deny! DENY!” dicamba volatility. PLAppx-341. Monsanto
`
`decided it would not settle off-target claims. PLAppx-85-86. Instead,
`
`Monsanto more than doubled its claims-management budget, anticipating
`
`increased damage in 2017. DEFSAppx-273, 275; PLAppx-322. Monsanto
`
`focused its efforts on “defense of commercial offsite movement claims.

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