EAST ST. LOUIS - Syngenta and Chevron claim Paraquat lawyers who oppose dismissal of 586 suits pretend that they haven’t repeatedly revealed implausible cases on their docket.
Syngenta counsel Ragan Naresh of Washington claimed on Oct. 16 that their brief against a docket control motion lacked substance and resorted to mischaracterizations.
“It is clear that many cases that should have been dismissed by plaintiffs on their own volition will only be dismissed if they are subject to this court’s scrutiny,” Naresh wrote.
“Indeed the court’s prior case management orders have resulted, directly or indirectly, in more than 1,400 voluntary dismissals.”
Chief U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel presides over about 5,800 active cases by appointment of judges in Washington who consolidated suits from many states in 2021.
Plaintiffs claim exposure to Paraquat caused Parkinson’s disease.
Rosenstengel adopted a plan to hold a series of jury trials that could shape global settlement.
She selected trial plaintiffs but as the first two prepared for trials in May 2023 their cases collapsed and their lawyers dismissed their claims.
Rosenstengel detected a problem bigger than two people so she ordered plaintiff leaders to confer with Syngenta and Chevron about implausible cases.
A stream of voluntary dismissals followed and other plaintiffs abandoned their claims by failing to return a mandatory questionnaire.
Rosenstengel selected dozens of plaintiffs to gather evidence and most of them dismissed.
This February, she directed each plaintiff to serve subpoenas on third parties for evidence providing proof of use or exposure.
Naresh moved for docket control in September, claiming 586 plaintiffs didn’t comply.
Lead plaintiff counsel Sarah Doles of Florida responded by calling the motion explosive and professionally irresponsible.
She claimed 431 plaintiffs couldn’t be subject to Rosenstengel’s order because they hadn’t filed when she entered the order.
She claimed the order included no language imposing an obligation or a deadline on cases filed in the future.
“The common theme expressed to plaintiffs’ leadership regarding the remaining cases is that there is no viable person or entity to subpoena because the employers and known suppliers are out of business and third party witnesses have passed away or cannot be found,” she wrote.
She claimed Syngenta and Chevron violated a rule by filing a motion in a discovery dispute without holding a conference.
She claimed Syngenta and Chevron sought summary judgment.
Naresh wrote in reply that they don’t seek dismissal of any case on summary judgment or other grounds.
He claimed they sought an order for plaintiffs who have not complied to show why their cases should not be dismissed.
He claimed plaintiffs argued that compliance was limited to cases filed prior to issuance of the order but the order didn’t limit itself to cases filed as of that date.
He claimed it didn’t make sense that the court should regularly issue orders reminding later filing plaintiffs that they must comply with orders.
He claimed at least 70 plaintiffs filed cases in the previous six weeks and subpoenas demonstrated that many later filed cases alleged implausible Paraquat use.
He claimed such plaintiffs should not be permitted to evade the ongoing subpoena obligation.
He claimed if plaintiffs are confused about their obligations under the order they can explain why they didn’t believe it applied and they can request 14 days to comply.
“The motion does not concern a discovery dispute,” he wrote.
“Thousands of plaintiffs whose description of herbicide use confirms use of a product other than Paraquat never should have filed complaints and likely wouldn’t have filed but for availability of this multi district litigation.”
Chevron counsel Sharyl Reisman of New York City also signed the reply.
How Rosenstengel's discovery order operates
Paraquat plaintiff Carl Sanders of Cook County offers an illustration of how Chief Judge Rosenstengel’s order for third party discovery can operate.
James Orr of Texas sued Syngenta and Chevron for Sanders last year.
In April he notified Rosenstengel that they couldn’t serve subpoenas as she required.
He stated that Sanders alleged exposure in the 1960s on Friley’s estate, an 80 acre farm in Mississippi.
“Through diligent inquiry it has been determined by plaintiff’s counsel that Friley’s estate is no longer in active operation,” he wrote.
He stated Sanders never obtained Paraquat for the estate and had no information regarding suppliers that provided the estate with products.
He stated Sanders had no memory of names of people who obtained Paraquat and no knowledge of persons or suppliers that might possess documentary proof.
He stated he and Sanders would continue to endeavor to determine if other parties might possess documentary proof and Sanders would immediately serve subpoenas on them.
He posted notice of voluntary dismissal on Oct. 3.