Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-md-02741/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-md-02741-99/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS 

LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2741

Case No. 16-md-02741-VC

This document relates to: 

ALL ACTIONS

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 201:

ORDER RE MOTION TO EXCLUDE 

TESTIMONY OF DR. SAWYER

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 

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 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 9137 Filed 01/22/20 Page 1 of 1