Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05658/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05658-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Emanuel Richard Giglio
Plaintiff
Monsanto Company
Defendant

Document Text:

1

15-cv-2279-BTM (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EMANUEL RICHARD GIGLIO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONSANTO COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15-cv-2279-BTM (WVG)

ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO BIFURCATE DISCOVERY

[ECF No. 51]

This is a product liability action in which plaintiff Emanuel Richard Giglio alleges 

that exposure to Roundup, an herbicide manufactured and marketed by defendant

Monsanto Company, caused him to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. On April 29, 2016, 

Judge Moskowitz partially granted and partially denied defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

ECF No. 37. Plaintiff’s remaining claims include negligence, design defect, failure to warn,

and breach of implied warranty. Now before the Court is defendant’s motion to bifurcate 

discovery and to limit the first phase of discovery to “general causation,” that is, the 

question of whether Roundup is capable of causing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. ECF No. 

51. Plaintiff opposes the motion. ECF No. 53. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants 

defendant’s motion.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be “employed by the court and the parties 

to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

Case 3:16-cv-05658-VC Document 54 Filed 08/02/16 Page 1 of 4
2

15-cv-2279-BTM (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1, and courts are authorized to tailor their scheduling orders to fit the particular needs of

each case, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. Courts have recognized that bifurcated or phased discovery 

can be an efficient management tool in certain cases. Compare, e.g., In re Hanford Nuclear 

Reservation Litig., 292 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 2002) (describing as “sensible” phased 

discovery schedule entered in mass tort case), and Perry v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 564 F. 

Supp. 2d 452, 455 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (granting summary judgment to defendants after 

discovery limited to the issue of causation), with Gonzalez v. Texaco, Inc., No. C 06-2820, 

2007 WL 661914, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2007) (denying motion for phased discovery 

in toxic tort action due to concern that phased discovery would lead to increased costs and 

delay), and True Health Chiropractic Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 13-cv-2219, 2015 WL 

273188, at *1-3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2015) (denying motion to bifurcate discovery in 

putative class action on grounds that line between class and merits discovery would be 

difficult to police and could cause additional litigation). Of the two other courts handling 

ostensibly similar Roundup cases that have been brought to this Court’s attention, one has 

opted to bifurcate discovery, see Hardeman v. Monsanto Co., 16-cv-525, ECF No. 48 (N.D. 

Cal. June 16, 2016), while the other has not, see Kennedy v. Monsanto Co., No. 16CMCC0001 (Mo. Cir. June 27, 2016). 

Here, the Court finds that conducting discovery in phases is an efficient solution that 

may prevent the parties from engaging in extremely broad and potentially wasteful 

discovery. Whether Roundup is capable of causing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is a 

threshold issue on which all of plaintiff’s claims rest, and competent expert testimony is 

generally necessary to establish causation in a personal injury action. See Avila v. Willits 

Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 836 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Jones v. Ortho Pharm. 

Corp., 209 Cal. Rptr. 456, 462 (1985)). The allegations in plaintiff’s complaint span forty 

years and delve into defendant’s marketing, labeling, and testing of Roundup. Proceeding

immediately on all issues would subject the parties to highly extensive discovery that may 

ultimately be unnecessary if defendant prevails on its Daubert motion. Limiting phase one 

to general causation, on the other hand, will enable the parties and the Court to arrive 

Case 3:16-cv-05658-VC Document 54 Filed 08/02/16 Page 2 of 4
3

15-cv-2279-BTM (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

expeditiously at a potentially dispositive issue that the Court firmly believes can be

separated from other liability and damages issues. 

Plaintiff makes several arguments against bifurcation. First, plaintiff argues that the 

prospect of full discovery on all issues in the Kennedy case in Missouri state court renders 

illusory any benefit to be achieved from phased discovery in this case. However, although

proceedings in other Roundup cases have some relevance, the Court is dealing only with 

the case before it. Focusing initial discovery on general causation serves efficiency interests 

for both the parties and the Court, regardless of how discovery does, or does not, proceed

in Missouri.

Plaintiff also argues that bifurcation will increase the length and cost of litigation

because defendant will appeal any adverse decision on the Daubert motion and because 

bifurcation will give rise to unnecessary discovery disputes. Both points are highly 

speculative. Even if defendant were permitted to appeal from an adverse Daubert decision, 

or a decision denying summary judgment, there is no certainty that a stay would be granted

pending the appeal. And the Court is confident that the parties (in the first instance) and

the Court (if necessary) will be able to reasonably define the boundaries of discovery on 

general causation and promptly resolve any discovery disputes if they arise.

Plaintiff also argues that bifurcation will prejudice him by permitting defendant to 

attack his experts twice, once on general causation and again on specific causation. 

However, even if defendant is allowed to attack plaintiff’s experts twice, the same 

opportunity will also be given to plaintiff.

Finally, plaintiff argues that the importance of the issues—Roundup is an 

extensively used agricultural product—weighs in favor of full discovery. But plaintiff will 

have an opportunity to engage in full discovery as long as plaintiff overcomes the Daubert

barrier on general causation. Moreover, any public interest in this case surely lies in the 

question of whether Roundup is capable of causing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which is 

the issue on which phase one discovery will focus. The Court therefore finds plaintiff’s 

“importance-of-the-issues” argument unpersuasive.

Case 3:16-cv-05658-VC Document 54 Filed 08/02/16 Page 3 of 4
4

15-cv-2279-BTM (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Accordingly, the Court grants defendant’s motion to bifurcate discovery. The parties 

shall lodge an amended discovery plan consistent with this order by August 10, 2016. A 

telephonic case management conference is set for 8:30 a.m. on August 17, 2016. No later 

than 4:00 p.m. on August 16, 2016, each attorney participating in the conference shall call 

chambers at (619) 557-6384 and provide a telephone number at which the attorney may be 

reached at the time of the conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-05658-VC Document 54 Filed 08/02/16 Page 4 of 4