EAST ST. LOUIS – Attorney Stephen Tillery of St. Louis threatened someone while Chief U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel prepared to issue an order against his interest in national paraquat litigation, according to the case docket.
She struck a letter from Tillery on Feb. 8, and sealed it.
“The allegations in the letter are serious, unfounded, and threatening, not to mention disrespectful to both special master Randi Ellis and the court,” Rosenstengel wrote.
She referred to an earlier order allowing only a plaintiff executive committee to file documents on the docket.
“Counsel is warned that the court will consider further improper filings as failure to comply with the orders of this court,” she wrote.
Tillery filed the letter on Feb. 7.
At that time Rosenstengel hadn’t ruled on whether three depositions from a St. Clair County paraquat case belonged to Tillery’s clients or all plaintiffs.
Tillery had deposed two Syngenta representatives and a Chevron representative in a case before Associate Judge Kevin Hoerner.
When Rosenstengel began presiding over national litigation she directed Syngenta and Chevron to produce the depositions to all plaintiffs.
Tillery sought protection from Hoerner and Hoerner granted it.
A plaintiff committee in Rosenstengel’s court moved to override Hoerner, claiming they needed to prepare for their own depositions of the representatives.
Rosenstengel ordered production on Feb. 8, after striking Tillery’s letter.
She found 677 plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if their lawyers couldn’t review prior testimony.
She granted an exception to a law against federal judges enjoining state judges.
She found the Supreme Court allows an injunction to prevent a state court from so interfering with a federal court as to seriously impair its flexibility and authority.
She found the Seventh Circuit allows a narrow injunction to prevent specific abuses that threaten a court’s ability to effectively manage the litigation.
“Issuing an injunction to ensure plaintiffs have access to the same materials as defendants only serves the public interest,” she wrote.
She narrowed the litigation somewhat on Feb. 14, by dismissing all claims that Syngenta and Chevron created a public nuisance.
She found such claims more like product liability.
“They seek damages for their alleged injuries rather than abatement of any true public nuisance,” she wrote.
She found nuisance involves unreasonable interference with a right common to all.
She found plaintiffs didn’t convince her that the daily activities of a business constituted control over a product.
She wrote that Oklahoma’s Supreme Court reversed a $465 million public nuisance judgment against Johnson & Johnson, finding no common law duty to monitor how a consumer uses a product.