Opinion ID: 6340619
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bo DeLong’s Proposal

Text: Syngenta also argues that Mr. DeLong admitted his company had incurred expenses when he submitted a proposal in August 2011. The proposal was a singlepage document setting forth a number of steps that Syngenta and others in the industry should take to keep DDGS produced from Viptera corn from entering the export channel to China. The steps that “the Agricultural Community should adopt” were to mitigate possible negative effects from the introduction of Viptera. Aplt. App., Vol. IX at 149. Of particular note, the final step was for Syngenta to pay “[a]ll costs of testing/diversion both on inbound corn and outbound DDGS.” Id. at 151. The proposal is forward looking. Rather than reflecting previous harms incurred, it outlines “steps that should be taken.” Id. (emphasis added). Syngenta points to testimony by Mr. DeLong that it reads as a concession that DeLong had already incurred expenses resulting from Syngenta’s alleged negligence. But Syngenta’s interpretation of the testimony is not mandatory. The statement must be read in context: Q: And the last bullet here you wrote: All costs of testing/diversion both on inbound corn and outbound DDGS should be to Syngenta’s account. Do you see that? [Bo DeLong]: Yes. 9 Appellate Case: 21-3044 Document: 010110684005 Date Filed: 05/13/2022 Page: 10 Q. Did you mean that – was your view in August – strike that. Does this reflect that your view in 2011 was that Syngenta should be responsible for reimbursing DeLong and others in the grain trade for the additional costs that DeLong was incurring as a result of dealing with the commercialization of MIR162? A. That’s what it says, yes. Id. at 1. There are no follow-up questions in the record to clarify or elaborate on this statement. The language relied on by Syngenta—“additional costs that DeLong was incurring”—did not come from Mr. DeLong himself, but was part of a multipart complex question. We think a jury could reasonably understand the testimony as stating only that Syngenta should be responsible for any additional costs that DeLong would incur. And the precise language of the question is only whether DeLong was incurring costs “in 2011,” not necessarily by October 2011. We also note that the only specific mention of “costs” in the proposal is in the final sentence: “All costs of all testing/diversion both on inbound corn and outbound DDGS should be to Sygenta’s account.” Id. at 151. But it is clear from the context that these costs would not have been incurred by DeLong when the proposal was sent out. Testing on inbound corn is listed in the proposal as a step to be performed by the ethanol plants receiving and processing the corn itself, not by DDGS exporters such as DeLong. The document also states that there is no available strip test for DDGS, which in practice would be needed for an exporter like DeLong to determine whether DDGS is contaminated with MIR 162 and then divert it from the export channel, so it is not reasonable to assume DeLong had incurred those costs either. 10 Appellate Case: 21-3044 Document: 010110684005 Date Filed: 05/13/2022 Page: 11 Again, if Syngenta believed this proposal reflected ongoing MIR 162 expenses as of August 2011, its attorney could have asked Mr. DeLong follow-up questions to specify what those expenses were. That was not done. A rational jury could infer that there were no such expenses.