Opinion ID: 6340619
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Preparations for Isolating MIR 162 Corn

Text: The primary harm identified by Syngenta was the alleged cost associated with protective steps DeLong took in arranging to deal with the possible receipt of MIR 162 corn products. Syngenta relies on deposition testimony of Bo DeLong, a company vice president, who discussed the arrangements: Q. And at that time [the fall of 2010], did DeLong begin taking preparations – and at that period of time, did DeLong begin engaging in preparations to direct farmers who were growing and delivering MIR162 corn to bring their product to certain DeLong facilities? A. That’s correct, and the one in point is Sharon. Q. Was there a cost associated with that? A. A cost to the producer. Q. Was there a cost to DeLong associated with it? A. Well, we had to isolate it. We had to have a separate dump facility. We didn’t know how much we were going to receive, although we thought the amounts were going to be fairly minimal based on what Syngenta told us or what we had been told as far as the amount that was grown initially the first year. And so we basically tied up, you know, a separate dump pit, leg dryer, wet holding tank and a finished product tank that we tied up for that corn to keep it isolated. Q. And when did you start these preparations for isolation? Was it spring of 2011? A. No. Probably August or September before harvest. Q. August or September of 2011? 6 Appellate Case: 21-3044 Document: 010110684005 Date Filed: 05/13/2022 Page: 7 A. That’s correct. Q. Could you roughly quantify the costs associated with the preparations for segregating these dump pits and the leg dryer? A. No. Q. Between the time of commercialization and the time MIR162 is approved for import into China in December of 2014, were those the only three DeLong facilities that knowingly accepted MIR162 corn? A. I believe so. Aplt. App., Vol. XII at 170. Syngenta suggests that there must have been costs associated with these preparations. But Mr. DeLong never admitted that his company incurred any costs. When asked directly about preparation costs, Mr. DeLong identified parties other than DeLong as having costs. When pressed on whether DeLong itself had any costs of its own, Mr. DeLong did not say “yes,” but instead described the actions DeLong took, without stating that there were any associated monetary costs. He then said he could not quantify any costs associated with these steps and, in a later declaration, stated there were in fact “no quantifiable costs” associated with these preparations. 1 Aplt. App., Vol. XIII at 153. We think it is not obvious that setting aside an area and certain equipment for MIR 162 corn required his company to incur any equipment costs or even additional labor expenses. Perhaps a jury could infer that there were additional costs; but it could also decline to infer that. For whatever reason, counsel for Syngenta decided not to try to pin the matter down. The district court stated it would disregard this declaration as a “sham” that 1 contradicted his deposition testimony. Respectfully, we see no conflict. 7 Appellate Case: 21-3044 Document: 010110684005 Date Filed: 05/13/2022 Page: 8 Compare what happened in Schoendorf. The company had clearly taken action in response to the relevant negligence: It had gone so far as to reach out to and secure a second firm to correct the negligently drafted retirement plan. 549 N.W.2d at 430– 31. Undoubtedly this involved some employee time. But that was not considered actual damage because there was not yet monetary harm. See id. at 434–35. Syngenta contends that the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision in State v. Service Electric & Supply, Inc., 316 N.W.2d 390, 395 (Wis. 1982), stands for the proposition that “the need to redirect corporate resources such as employee time constitutes a compensable injury.” Aplee. Br. at 33. But we do not read that opinion so broadly. As we understand it, the court was recognizing an exception to the longstanding rule that overhead expenses, such as normal salary expenses of an employee, are not recoverable, see Edward E. Gillen Co. v. John H. Parker Co., 171 N.W. 61, 68 (Wis. 1919). What was special in Service Electric was that the supervisor whose salary was to be recovered had been assigned specifically to the breached contract to obtain a new contractor and otherwise would have been working on other projects that instead went undone. See 316 N.W.2d at 394. Of particular relevance to this case, the court distinguished the decision in Walker Manufacturing Co. v. Henkel Construction Co., 346 F. Supp. 621, 633 (N.D. Iowa 1972), with the following parenthetical: “[C]ompany denied recovery of salaries of three of its workers whose services were expended supervising the replacement of a defective roof installed by the original contractor because there was no sufficient indication at trial as to what these employees would have been doing had they not been working 8 Appellate Case: 21-3044 Document: 010110684005 Date Filed: 05/13/2022 Page: 9 on the roof problem. The amount of time the employees spent working on this project has not been shown as an expense solely attributable to the breach.” (brackets, ellipsis, and internal quotation marks omitted). That description fits the record in this case better than Service Electric does.