EAST ST. LOUIS – Deceased plaintiffs clutter the docket of national litigation on claims that weed killer paraquat causes Parkinson’s disease, according to defendants Syngenta and Chevron.
In a brief filed May 5, defense counsel Sharyl Reisman of New York City stated defendants found dozens of online obituaries of active plaintiffs.
She claimed plaintiff lawyers let cases sit on the docket, often for more than a year, without notice to defendants or the court.
She claimed they amended complaints and returned questionnaires after deaths, “and therefore did so without authority to act.”
She added that they used signatures of dead plaintiffs on questionnaires and amendments.
“All of that addresses only the cases defendants were able to identify from publicly available obituaries which are likely just the tip of the iceberg,” she wrote.
Reisman wants Chief U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel to require certification that each plaintiff is alive.
Rosenstengel presides over more than 3,200 paraquat cases from many courts by appointment of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation.
In February, Reisman moved for a management order addressing deceased plaintiffs.
She claimed Chevron began an investigation after obituaries of two plaintiffs indicated they sued eight and nine months after they died.
She also claimed Chevron compared 2,271 cases pending on Nov. 17 to obituaries from January 2020 through last December.
Chevron allegedly compared information in the obituaries to allegations in complaints, questionnaires, and medical records.
Reisman claimed Chevron identified at least 20 complaints or amended complaints that were apparently filed after death and two that were filed seven and eight months after death.
She claimed Chevron found 39 other cases where plaintiffs died after filing complaints but counsel didn’t disclose the fact to defendants.
She added that counsel submitted initial or amended questionnaires after death in 13 cases.
“In other words, counsel continued to actively prosecute the cases and serve discovery on defendants without substituting a representative,” she wrote.
She called it pervasive misconduct implicating more than 20 firms.
“The inherent limitations on Chevron’s investigation make it likely that the problems run even deeper,” she wrote.
Reisman claimed a deceased person’s complaint is a legal nullity from the start “and therefore must be dismissed, since a dead individual has neither standing nor capacity to sue.”
She claimed counsel can’t prosecute a case after a plaintiff dies without substituting an appropriate representative.
“Last but certainly not least, falsifying a plaintiff’s signature on sworn discovery responses is quite obviously a brazen ethical breach and a fraud on the court if not a crime," she wrote.
Lead plaintiff counsel Sarah Doles of Florida filed a response on April 28, under seal.
Reisman sealed Chevron’s reply but filed a copy without names or other personal information.
She wrote that it’s not a manufactured problem.
“Nor does the flurry of suggestions of death and substitution motions filed in the days before plaintiffs’ response solve the problem as plaintiffs seem to think,” she wrote.
“To the contrary it illustrates the problem, because those filings would never have been made but for defendants’ motion,” she added.
Reisman claimed plaintiffs implicitly admitted that Chevron identified 16 complaints filed by already dead plaintiffs.
She claimed plaintiffs insisted the problem should be handled through motion practice in individual cases.
“But these cases are merely the examples defendants were able to identify based on publicly available obituaries,” she wrote.
“Counsel has not bothered to dismiss the original improperly filed actions which remain cluttering the docket,” she added.
Reisman claimed plaintiffs admitted that a firm amended six questionnaires using a verification page predating the deaths of plaintiffs.
“They copied and pasted earlier signatures to verify later factual representations,” she wrote.
“That is fraud, even if those questionnaires only corrected typographical errors and omissions as plaintiffs claim,” she continued.
Reisman claimed five of the six amendments were substantive and one named four new witnesses.
She claimed plaintiffs said neither date nor signature was modified.
“Screenshots show counsel used old signatures with new dates after the deaths,” she wrote.
“Even more disturbing, this misconduct has not stopped,” she added.
“Defendants have identified another five cases in which, after defendants filed their motion, counsel served questionnaires with signatures of plaintiffs who had already died,” she continued.
“It is not clear whether counsel in these cases were duplicating older signatures or forging them outright,” she wrote.
She requested an order for counsel to certify within 30 days whether a plaintiff is living and if so, whether counsel is in contact with the plaintiff.
For a dead plaintiff, Reisman requested date of death and an explanation of any filing or discovery response purportedly signed or authorized by that plaintiff after death.
Rosenstengel planned to hold a regular conference on May 11.