EAST ST. LOUIS – After discovering dead plaintiffs on the docket of national litigation over claims that weed killer paraquat causes Parkinson’s disease, defendants Syngenta and Chevron claim they’ve uncovered 611 empty claims.
They delivered a list to Chief U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel on June 20 and stated they would supplement it on an ongoing basis.
Rosenstengel asked for the list in May, after two plaintiffs among six she selected for trial voluntarily dismissed their claims.
She presides over more than 4,000 claims from many states by appointment of the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation.
Rosenstengel decided in 2021 to hold trials that could shape settlement of all claims.
She decided she needed 16 potential plaintiffs for six trials.
She directed a plaintiff leadership council to choose eight and she directed Syngenta and Chevron to choose four each.
Discovery proceeded for all 16 last year and when it ended, both sides ranked the potential plaintiffs in order of preference.
Rosenstengel reviewed the rankings and selected six for further discovery leading to trial.
Four names came from the plaintiff council’s list.
Two names, Robert Walkington and Eve Marx, came from the defense list.
On May 5, Walkington and Marx voluntarily dismissed their claims.
James Onder of St. Louis County and others in his firm represented Walkington.
Gibbs Henderson of Dallas represented Marx.
Rosenstengel reacted to the dismissals on May 15, in an order mostly about deceased plaintiffs.
She expressed concern over the integrity of the docket and ordered certification that each plaintiff is alive and in contact with counsel.
Then she brought up Walkington, Marx, and “evidentiary issues.”
She directed the parties to confer regarding cases that presented theories of proof so implausible that good faith demanded voluntary dismissal.
Rosenstengel set a category for plaintiffs who have no information concerning exposure to paraquat as opposed to another product.
She set a category for plaintiffs who have no medical evidence for Parkinson’s disease.
She set a category for plaintiffs claiming to use it in a form in which it never existed, such as powder or pellets.
She also set a category for issues that led to the dismissal of Walkington and Marx.
Rosenstengel quoted a Georgia judge who found multi district litigation produced incentives for filing cases that wouldn’t be filed if they had to stand on their own merit.
She set a June 20 deadline for Syngenta and Chevron to identify such cases and seek relief.
On June 19, lead plaintiff counsel Sarah Doles of Florida and Khaldoun Baghdadi of San Francisco moved to modify Rosenstengel’s order.
They claimed Syngenta and Chevron tried to turn it into a vending machine for dismissal.
They also claimed a procedure was in place to raise deficiencies, cure them, and raise matters with a special master to make a recommendation to the court.
“Just because a plaintiff may have used paraquat on a golf course or school grounds at a time when it was not authorized for such use does not mean paraquat did not cause Parkinson’s disease,” they wrote.
“Just because a minor may have used paraquat on a family farm does not mean paraquat did not cause Parkinson’s disease,” they added.
Then they brought up Walkington and Marx.
“Both plaintiffs disclosed their treating physicians as expert witnesses, based upon both plaintiffs’ counsel’s investigation and case work up,” they wrote
“Both plaintiffs’ counsel were prepared to file motions for voluntary dismissal with supporting declarations that explained the facts that neither doctor ultimately expressed during the deposition the opinions that were expressed in preparation for naming them as experts in advance of their depositions,” they continued.
“However, based upon plaintiff leadership counsel’s belief, after conferring with the special master, that stipulations were the favored means for seeking dismissal, plaintiff leadership counsel and Marx’s counsel and Walkington’s counsel agreed that motion practice was neither necessary nor advantageous to effectuate the dismissals,” they continued.
Doles and Baghdadi wrote that they included context “to rebut any potential inference of lack of good faith on the part of Marx’s counsel or Walkington’s counsel.”
On June 20, Syngenta counsel Ragan Naresh of Washington submitted a list placing 34 plaintiffs in Rosenstengel’s first category, 44 in the second, 74 in the third, and 459 in the fourth.
He claimed their counsel should submit an affidavit for each case attesting the claims have an evidentiary basis and their pursuit is consistent with counsel’s obligations.
Naresh claimed no peer reviewed study in scientific literature concluded that paraquat causes Parkinson’s disease.
He added that federal and state regulators strictly control its purchase and application.
Naresh wrote that paraquat can’t be sprayed on growing crops and is typically used to clear fields of weeds before crops are planted.
He claimed an advertising campaign of plaintiff counsel and lead generators “virtually guaranteed that individuals never exposed to paraquat would file lawsuits.”
He claimed they targeted home gardeners despite the fact that no paraquat products are registered for home use.
He added that they targeted golfers despite the fact that paraquat use on golf courses has been prohibited by law for decades.
“Lead generators like Guardian Legal Network are not law firms but actively solicit plaintiffs and sell the leads that they generate to law firms who ultimately file suit,” he wrote.
Naresh then brought up Walkington and Marx.
He claimed they couldn’t identify a witness to testify that the product that was sprayed in their vicinity was paraquat.
He added that neither served an expert report that paraquat caused Parkinson’s disease.
Naresh claimed many plaintiffs represented by one law firm allege exposure at home, and they state by rote that exposure originated a mile from home.
Rosenstengel set a July 5 deadline for plaintiffs to respond.
She has set the first trial to begin in October.