Turn to the nation's most objective and informative daily environmental news resource to learn how the United States and key players around the world are responding to the environmental...
A federal judge rejected an attempt by attorneys to pry more information out of a retired EPA scientist embroiled in a bitter battle between Monsanto Co. and thousands of cancer patients.
The judge also criticized lawyers at a recent hearing for mounting a public relations campaign against the agrichemical giant.
Judge Vince Chhabria, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, on May 15 denied a motion from victims’ attorneys to compel additional testimony from Jess Rowland, a former deputy director of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs who led the cancer review for Monsanto Co.'s signature weedkiller, Roundup. The plaintiffs allege that the herbicide gave them non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a common form of cancer affecting the lymphatic system ( In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation , N.D. Cal., 3:16-md-02741, 5/15/17 ).
Rowland wrote a preliminary report that found that glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, is not likely to cause cancer, and left the agency shortly after that report was accidentally posted online. The attorneys have sought to portray Rowland as a key player in assuring glyphosate’s stamp of approval in the U.S., despite a 2015 finding from the International Agency for Research on Cancer that the herbicide is probably carcinogenic.
Chhabria told the attorneys in the multi-district litigation at a May 11 hearing that he would deny their motion to force Rowland to disclose the nature of his consulting work for three companies, as well as when he was first contacted about the work and his pay, since leaving the EPA. He said it was irrelevant what Rowland has been doing for his new employers, given that they are not Monsanto.
“Even if he was hired to sweep the porch on their vacation bungalow in Hawaii” it wouldn’t have anything to do with this case, he told the attorneys.
Chhabria also told plaintiffs’ attorney Michael Miller of the Miller Firm LLC in Orange, Va., that he was “mischaracterizing the evidence” in the case.
Chhabria denounced the attorneys’ voluminous release of documents via attachments to court filings, only a portion of which he said has any relevance to the case. He said the plaintiffs were releasing these documents to indirectly hand information to the news media.
“The concern I have,” he said at the hearing, “is that you are using this litigation as a PR campaign. That is obviously what you have been trying to do and that is going to stop.”
Plaintiffs’ attorney Aimee Wagstaff, a partner in Andrus Wagstaff in Lakewood, Colo., told Bloomberg BNA that Chhabria’s denial would not hinder their case.
“We are prepared to go forward in presenting our case without that testimony,” she said.
Wagstaff during the hearing defended the lawyers’ lengthy document releases, noting that some courts insist that parties file entire discovery documents they are quoting from in their motions. Chhabria agreed that some judges require full exhibits, and said that he was more tolerant of many documents being filed when questioning scientific issues, she told Bloomberg BNA.
The case has generated considerable attention from the media. The court unsealed documents March 14 that included emails from Monsanto officials summarizing a conversation between Rowland and the company’s regulatory affairs manager Dan Jenkins. In those conversations, Jenkins suggested that Rowland would try to end an evaluation another federal science agency was conducting into glyphosate’s toxicity.
“If I can kill this I should get a medal,” Jenkins quoted Rowland as saying in an email to colleagues.
Rowland’s attorneys have said in court filings that the accusations against their client are baseless. They claim that the plaintiffs’ attorneys have presented dubious information as fact, including statements that Rowland was Monsanto’s chief “friend” at the agency, and that he was placed on administrative leave, rather than voluntarily retired, after the cancer review was “leaked.”
“There is no genuine dispute that, since his retirement, Mr. Rowland has not performed any work for, or received any compensation from, Monsanto. Nor has he done any work involving the herbicide glyphosate, the chemical that is the focus of this case,” Rowland’s attorney William Lawler of Vinson & Elkins LLP in Washington, D.C., wrote.
As a nonparty to the Monsanto lawsuit, Rowland should be protected from the burden of additional discovery efforts that go beyond the permissible scope, the costs of paying for his counsel, accusations that are not supported by the record, and the risk of violating confidentiality rules in his current contracts, his attorneys said in a filing.
Chhabria did move in the plaintiffs’ favor in a separate motion to make public a series of tumor slides on kidney tissue from mice from 1985, part of a Monsanto study on the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.
The EPA used the study to justify an early interpretation that glyphosate could cause cancer in mice. The agency reversed that finding several years later after a pathologist hired by Monsanto found tumors in the historical control group for mice exposed to the chemical, casting doubt on whether glyphosate was the agent that spurred the tumors. Toxicologists also say that many test animal studies find kidney problems, making it difficult to attribute disease to specific agents.
“We are very happy with the court’s decision with respect to the slides,” Wagstaff told Bloomberg BNA.
The 1985 study has influenced the EPA’s scientific review of glyphosate’s cancer-causing potential, she added.
Earlier studies, she said, “are the building blocks you just can’t remove.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Tiffany Stecker in Washington, D.C. at email@example.com and Robert Burnson at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Paul Connolly at PConnolly@bna.com
Copyright © 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)