Quantcast

Judge Rosenstengel: Newer Paraquat plaintiffs can't dodge exposure subpoenas

MADISON - ST. CLAIR RECORD

Saturday, November 23, 2024

Judge Rosenstengel: Newer Paraquat plaintiffs can't dodge exposure subpoenas

Federal Court
Webp rosenstengelcropped

Chief Judge Nancy Rosenstengel | District Court

EAST ST. LOUIS - Chief U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel ruled on Oct. 28 that 402 plaintiffs in nationwide litigation of claims that weed killer paraquat caused Parkinson’s disease must serve subpoenas for proof of exposure.

Rosenstengel rejected an argument of plaintiff leaders that a case management order she issued on Feb. 26 didn’t apply to plaintiffs who sued after that date.

“The court takes this opportunity to clarify case management order 21’s scope: every plaintiff in this multi district litigation is subject to the requirements of case management order 21 regardless of when their case was filed,” she wrote.

“This means that all cases filed since February 26, when the Court issued case management order 21, and all cases filed in the future, must abide by case management order 21’s requirements.”

When she issued Order 21 she expressed concern that a substantial number of plaintiffs likely wouldn’t have filed their cases as stand alone actions.

Rosenstengel directed each plaintiff to subpoena third parties for evidence of use or exposure.

She stated her order would provide plaintiffs an opportunity to better determine the strength of their claims and expose claims without merit.

Syngenta and Chevron, defendants as producer and former producer of paraquat, moved for a 22nd case management order in September.

They asked Rosenstengel to give 586 plaintiffs a chance to show why they didn’t serve subpoenas and to dismiss them if they couldn’t show why.

Lead plaintiff counsel Sarah Doles of Florida responded that most plaintiffs on the list couldn’t be subject to Order 21 because they hadn’t filed as of Feb. 26.

Doles claimed Rosenstengel imposed no obligation or deadline on cases filed in the future.

She conceded a scarcity of evidence in the cases Syngenta and Chevron identified. 

“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,” Doles wrote.

Syngenta counsel Ragan Naresh of Washington replied that many plaintiffs who should dismiss on their own volition will be dismissed only if they are subject to scrutiny.

Naresh claimed Rosenstengel’s orders have resulted in more than 1,400 voluntary dismissals.

Rosenstengel granted relief to Syngenta and Chevron, not as Order 22 but as Order 21A.

She allowed 21 days for plaintiffs who sued after Feb. 26 to comply.

She directed Syngenta and Chevron to file a supplement on or after Nov. 27 identifying plaintiffs who didn’t comply.

After they file it, plaintiff leaders will have 14 days to contest it.

For future plaintiffs she allowed 60 days to serve subpoenas, 21 days to produce results, and 10 days for plaintiffs to upload results to their electronic portals.

She closed 140 cases in October, nearly all by voluntary dismissal.

She dismissed two plaintiffs on her own after their lawyers withdrew and no one substituted.   

She presides over almost 6,000 cases by appointment of judges in Washington who consolidated suits from many states in 2021.

More News