*I haven't weighed in here in a while since the arguments are all repetitious and I already said my piece.  But re-reading the thread and the thinkprogress source cited above, I think we should include content about the San Diego suit b/c 1) they are pursuing a novel theory of "public nuisance." Apparently this is the first case like that for PCBs.  (see the thinkprogress source cited above  (normally I reach for major media like the NYT and shun advocacy sites on any thing controversial but this article is reasonable);  2) The background here is that per the source I just cited and per  this source, the city of San Diego and the shipyards there were already found liable in court for cleanup costs for ocean dumping that the shipyards did and that the city authorized- the city is trying to find the money to pay for that with - that 2nd source says "Attorneys from the city and the port lay some of the blame on Monsanto and see the lawsuit as a viable means of recovering costs"  . c) the yet deeper background (and this is pure SYN and we cannot use it as i have found no source linking these two) is that San Diego almost went bankrupt just a few years ago per this (this are better now per this but those folks have to be sweating bullets to stay sound).  Anyway, on the basis of this novel aspect of the San Diego lawsuit, I would support adding content about the San Diego suit, with its context the city and port are trying to get money for what they are already liable for, to the article.