Opinion
16-md-02741-VC
03-19-2024
IN RE ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This document relates to See Appendix MDL No. 2741
VINCE CHHABRIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART, AND DEEMING MOOT IN PART MOTION TO MOVE CASES TO WAVE 8 RE: DKT. NO. 17935
VINCE CHHABRIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The plaintiffs in 43 actions have filed motions to move their cases to Wave 8. The cases are currently spread across Waves 7A-7F. As the plaintiffs acknowledge, almost all of these cases have previously been moved between waves, so further moves will not be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. The plaintiffs say that the move is justified, first, because the plaintiffs' counsel's firm has only three attorneys available to work on the firm's “inventory” of Roundup cases, and therefore meeting the deadlines presented by the Wave 7 schedule presents insurmountable challenges. Second, the plaintiffs' counsel will be trying a four-week state-court Roundup case beginning on April 15, 2024. That period overlaps with several Wave 7 deadlines. Monsanto opposes the motion. The plaintiffs filed no reply brief.
The trouble for the plaintiffs is that the scheduling problems they describe are largely of their own making. Most of these cases were originally in Wave 6. Plaintiffs' counsel requested that almost all of the cases be moved to Wave 7, and in doing so they created an entirely predictable logjam. The problem could have been avoided, or at least alleviated, if the cases had been spread between waves. The same thing can be said about the state court trial: surely the plaintiffs' counsel knew, when they requested the moves to Wave 7, when that trial would take place. It is not extraordinary that the deadlines have now rolled around. In addition, the plaintiffs have offered no reason to think that moving the cases en masse to Wave 8 will solve, rather than merely defer, the understaffing problem they describe. There's also something to be said for Monsanto's argument that Plaintiffs' counsel simply should not have taken on more cases than they were able to competently handle at once, given the largely predictable demands of this litigation.
The table in the plaintiffs' motion states the “previous wave” for each case, but it does not state the original wave in which most of these cases were scheduled. For example, Bray v. Monsanto Co., No. 19-cv-05060-VC, was originally in Wave 6. It was first moved to Wave 7A before later being moved again between Wave 7 sub-waves.
Three of the 43 cases have not previously been moved back, and Monsanto does not oppose their being moved to Wave 8. The motion is granted as to these three cases: Sullivan, Adams, and Roth. Another case, Hunter, has already been moved by a separate consent motion, and the parties have stipulated to the dismissal of Neff and Rivera. See Dkt. Nos. 18003, 18005, 18017. The motion is deemed moot to the extent that it concerns those cases. The motion is denied with respect to the remaining cases.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Appendix
| This Document Relates To: |
| Deborah Miller v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:19-cv-04946-VC |
| Bettie J. Boucher v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:21-cv-07475-VC |
| Richard Garrott v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:19-cv-05063-VC |
| Debi Glaze v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:20-cv-00064-VC |
| Justin Goik v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:19-cv-04812-VC |
| John George Gorman v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:20-cv-01670-VC |
| Kevin Humphrey v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:19-cv-04647-VC |
| Michael Henry Johnson v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:20-cv-01234-VC |
| William Johnson, II v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:19-cv-05095-VC |
| Pamela Keeney v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:20-cv-00433-VC |
| Nathan Kuehn v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:20-cv-00669-VC |
| Ralph Vitale v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:19-cv-04919-VC |
| Mark Waligura v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:19-cv-04981-VC |
| Karen McCulloch v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:20-cv-01672-VC |
| John Warren Moers v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:20-cv-01671-VC |
| Ray Moore v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:19-cv-04974-VC |
| Shari L. Neff v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:19-cv-05294-VC |
| William Rice v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:19-cv-04941-VC |
| Diane Rivera v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3-19-cv-04962-VC |
| Virgenna Saunders v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:19-cv-05053-VC |
| Kelly Scheideman v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:20-cv-01674-VC |
| Dan Sullivan v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:20-cv-03549-VC |
| Charleen Trefry v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:19-cv-04921-VC |
| Francis Wilcome v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:19-cv-04875-VC |
| Leland Adams v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 2:22-cv-07609-VC |
| Eugene L. Aiken, Jr. v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:20-cv-00065-VC |
| Michael David Albrecht v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:20-cv-01636-VC |
| Terry Benson v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:19-cv-04953-VC |
| Beverly Bray v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:19-cv-05060-VC |
| Steven Clausen v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:22-cv-02293-VC |
| Jeffrey Crooks v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:19-cv-05027-VC |
| Tina Culp v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:20-cv-03439-VC |
| Janice Emmons v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:20-cv-06219-VC |
| Dennis Ferris v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:19-cv-05077-VC |
| Sadie Hunter v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:21-cv-09947-VC |
| Joseph Johnson v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:22-cv-02294-VC |
| David Reno v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:22-cv-02295-VC |
| Phillip Roth v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:20-cv-01543-VC |
| Arelen Swartz v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:19-cv-04859-VC |
| Linda Tiddark v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:20-cv-03060-VC |
| Juliana Fuller v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:21-cv-09588-VC |
| Linda Wilson v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:22-cv-04266-VC |
| Jeremy Hutchings v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3-22-cv-04636-VC |