Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04100/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04100-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS 

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This document relates to: 

Stevick v. Monsanto Co., 16-cv-2341

Giglio v. Monsanto Co., 16-cv-5658

I. Hernandez v. Monsanto Co., 16-cv-5750

Sanders v. Monsanto Co., 16-cv-5752

Domina v. Monsanto Co., 16-cv-5887

Russo v. Monsanto Co., 16-cv-6024

Perkins v. Monsanto Co., 16-cv-6025

Mendoza v. Monsanto Co., 16-cv-6046

Harris v. Monsanto Co., 17-cv-3199

Alvarez Calderon v. Monsanto Co., 19-cv-1630

Tanner v. Monsanto Co., 19-cv-4099

Pollard v. Monsanto Co., 19-cv-4100

Dickey v. Monsanto Co., 19-cv-4102

Janzen v. Monsanto Co., 19-cv-4103

MDL No. 2741 

Case No. 16-md-02741-VC 

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 

201: ORDER RE MOTION TO 

EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. 

SAWYER 

(WAVE 1 CASES) 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 8010, 8572, 8573 

The bulk of Monsanto’s motions to exclude testimony from Sawyer is moot, because the 

plaintiffs have clarified that Sawyer does not intend to offer many of the opinions to which 

Monsanto objects. For example, the plaintiffs clarify that Sawyer will not offer an opinion on 

general causation, nor will he offer a differential diagnosis opinion as to any individual plaintiff.

The plaintiffs assert that Sawyer should nonetheless be permitted to opine that a 

plaintiff’s “exposure to Roundup was sufficient to cause NHL.” Thus, this aspect of Monsanto’s 

Case 3:19-cv-04100-VC Document 48 Filed 01/22/20 Page 1 of 2
2

motions is not moot. Because Sawyer will not offer an opinion on general causation or 

differential diagnosis, it follows that he may not opine that a plaintiff’s “exposure to Roundup 

was sufficient to cause NHL.” On the other hand, to the extent Sawyer has offered an opinion on 

a particular plaintiff’s level of exposure or rate of absorption, it would be permissible for that 

plaintiff’s counsel to ask Sawyer to assume that a particular exposure or absorption level creates 

an NHL risk based on other experts’ testimony, and then asked if the particular plaintiff 

exceeded that exposure or absorption level. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2020

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-04100-VC Document 48 Filed 01/22/20 Page 2 of 2