BELLEVILLE – St. Clair County Circuit Judge Kevin Hoerner denied a motion by American Broadcasting Company (ABC) for access to records he sealed in a suit over exposure to weed killer paraquat.
He entered an order March 28, finding ABC could have sought relief at any time from a protective order that parties to the suit relied on for years.
“Had they done so, plaintiffs and defendants could have taken steps other than relying on the protective order to keep their sensitive financial and medical information private,” he wrote.
He found ABC’s delay in seeking relief deprived the parties of that opportunity.
Stephen Tillery of St. Louis filed the suit against Syngenta and Chevron in 2017 for plaintiffs claiming paraquat caused Parkinson’s disease.
Hoerner entered the protective order in 2018.
It stated that where a party included confidential information in any filing, the party would mark the filing as subject to the order and seal it.
Plaintiffs and defendants settled the suit in 2021.
Last November, ABC counsel Joseph Martineau of St. Louis moved to intervene for the purpose of unsealing all sealed pleadings and deposition transcripts.
He claimed documents were sealed more than 80 times.
Martineau claimed the sealed documents related to substantive and potentially dispositive matters.
He added that the parties sealed documents without any specific motion or order and without any articulation of the reasons for sealing.
Martineau claimed the factual and legal basis for a summary judgment motion of plaintiffs was unknown as they sealed it and all supporting materials.
He claimed it was unclear whether Hoerner ruled on the motion or entered any order on it.
“On May 10, 2021, the day the case was set for trial, the court issued an order vacating the trial setting and delaying trial until further order,” he wrote.
Martineau wrote that on Aug. 26, 2021, Syngenta revealed that it paid $187.5 million into a settlement fund on July 21, 2021.
He claimed the settlement didn’t bar ABC’s right to intervene.
He claimed a party in Illinois can overcome a right of access only by articulating a compelling interest or showing the records might become a vehicle for improper purposes.
Martineau claimed public interest outweighed any proprietary interest or embarrassment.
He noted that more than 2,000 people joined paraquat litigation in a federal multi district court and the environmental protection agency would review its approval of paraquat.
He claimed a possible link between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease is a matter of urgent public concern especially for farmers and farm workers.
In February, Tillery responded that plaintiffs would have to scrutinize more than 19,000 pages to identify information that should not be available to the public.
Tillery claimed that if Hoerner granted the motion, ABC should pay for the document review.
Martineau replied that Tillery provided no description of the 19,000 pages and ABC was hardly able to identify which documents may have been appropriately secreted from public inspection.
He claimed plaintiffs placed their medical information at issue.
Hoerner found the file included multiple filings by plaintiffs and defendants containing information properly designated as confidential.
He wrote that the settlement applied not only to plaintiffs in his court but also to other Tillery clients who had yet to sue in any court.
Hoerner wrote that the protective order was “narrowly tailored to protect sensitive information that the parties had legitimate reasons to keep private.”
He added that the file doesn’t contain pleadings associated with the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion because they never filed one.
Multi district paraquat proceedings continue before Chief U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel in East St. Louis.
She has selected plaintiffs for a series of trials that could shape a settlement.