A Behind the Scenes Look at the Hardeman v. Monsanto Roundup Litigation and Appeal

09/28/21 • 57 min

Monsanto Co. has "stopped at nothing to deny the overwhelming scientific evidence" that its widely used and extremely profitable weed killer, Roundup, is a "deadly product that causes cancer and ruins lives and families."
That is according to a post written by Leslie Brueckner, Senior Attorney with Public Justice following the May 2021 Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling against Monsanto, and for Edwin Hardeman, a California resident who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after decades of exposure to Roundup. The jury awarded Hardeman $5,267.634.10 in compensatory damages, and $75 million in punitive damages. The district court reduced the punitive damages award to $20 million.
In this inaugural episode of Justice Pod: Conversations with Public Justice Change Makers, Leslie, is joined by David J. Wool, an attorney with the Wagstaff Law Firm. Wool and Jennifer A. Moore of the Moore Law Group, were on the trial team led by highly-regarded mass tort plaintiff attorney Aimee Wagstaff. Public Justice's Brueckner served as co-lead appellate counsel along with Wool before the Ninth Circuit.
Listen to what they felt inspired the jury to return such a substantial award, how Monsanto attempted to defend its actions, what the evidence revealed, and what it was like in the courtroom with the Hardeman family when the foreman read the verdict.
I hope you find the episode inspiring and informative!
Susan Gombert
Host of Justice Pod:
Conversations with Public Justice Change Makers

Next Episode

What a Canned Tuna Price-Fixing Case Means to Employment and Civil Rights Class Actions

“I part company ... with the majority’s conclusion that, before certifying a class, the district court must find that only a ‘de minimis’ number of class members are uninjured. The text of Rule 23 contains no such requirement, nor do our precedents. The majority’s effective amendment of Rule 23 not only ignores our case law but also circumvents the established process for modifying a Rule of Civil Procedure—study and advice from the relevant committees, followed by the consent of the Supreme Court and Congress’s tacit approval.”
That is what Ninth Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz said in his partial concurrence and partial dissent in Olean Wholesale v. Bumble Bee, in which the panel itself set the wheels in motion for en banc review of a holding that, if allowed to stand, would have added another high hurdle for plaintiffs to overcome in achieving certification of class actions. The full court decertified the decision pending review.

For insights into the case are two attorneys who submitted arguments in the case. They are Karla Gilbride, Senior Attorney at Public Justice, and Jocelyn D. Larkin, Executive Director at the Impact Fund.
Listen to what they say about the case, why it’s significant, and what they believe will be the ultimate outcome.
I hope you find the episode inspiring and informative!
Susan Gombert
Host

Justice Pod: Conversations with Public Justice Change Makers