`
`
`
`
`
`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.