Thread by @doratki

Closing arguments are about to start in a landmark trial over claims that Monsanto's Roundup and Ranger Pro herbicides gave a school groundskeeper lymphoma. Punitive damages are on the table. bit.ly/2OU793I

The jury's not in the room yet, but Monsanto's attorneys are fighting hard to keep certain testimony and evidence out of the plaintiff's closing arguments. The plaintiff's atty responds: "The problem with that is literally my job is to point out evidence to support my position."

The plaintiff's attorney tells the judge he's not going to say in closing arguments that Monsanto is a bad company. He's going to say it's the "worst" company.

The judge allowed the plaintiff's attorney to mention testimony provided by Monsanto's epidemiology expert, who conceded that big tobacco companies made similar arguments to her take on cancer-causing agents. But the judge warns plaintiff's atty to base his arguments in evidence.

The jury just came into the courtroom, and the judge is reading them instructions. Closings arguments are coming up. They should take the day and might spill over to Wednesday.

Plaintiff's attorney Brent Wisner of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman PC has begun closings: "Today is their day of reckoning... This is the day that Monsanto is finally held accountable."

Wisner tells the jurors that they're part of history and then launches into the history of the EPA's approval of Roundup in the 1970s.

Wisner argues that the EPA's approval of Roundup wasn't transparent and the EPA should have done follow up studies over the past 40 years. He adds that the author of the EPA Roundup study said in an email that if he could "kill" another investigation, he "should get a medal."

Wisner argues epidemiology studies that Monsanto cites don't adequately address the cancer risks of Roundup and the idea that there’s confounding in studies that show the link between cancer and the herbicides "is just garbage."

Wisner says the minimum latency period for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is four months, not years, which is what Monsanto argues. The plaintiff was exposed for "two full spraying seasons." That's enough time to get cancer, Wisner argues.

Wisner is wrapping and finally getting to damages. He says Monsanto owes the plaintiff $2.25 million in economic damages.

Wisner tells jury it should award the plaintiff $37 million in non-economic damages, a million for every year of his life that he will have lost. That brings the total in compensatory damages he's seeking to $39 million.

Wisner is really building up to how much they want for punitives. He says Monsanto's net worth is $6.6 billion and $3.1 billion in cash on hand.

Wisner asks the jury to award $373 million in punitive damages against Monsanto. "That’s a number that makes people change their way," he says.

Wisner wraps his closing argument criticizing Monsanto's legal strategy, saying they "didn't put up much of a defense" or call on any Monsanto employee to testify.

The jury is taking a lunch break after the plaintiff's counsel argued they should award $412 million in punitive and compensatory damages against Monsanto. Monsanto's attorneys will present closing arguments at 1:45 PST.

Back from lunch. George Lombardi of Winston & Strawn LLP is arguing closings on behalf of Monsanto.

Lombardi says there's a "wealth of science" that shows the active ingredient in Monsanto's herbicides doesn't cause cancer in people.

Lombardi has largely focused on discrediting the plaintiff's experts. He argued that the plaintiff's cancer expert was not an objective third party and he's been going around "pushing his theory of glyphosate unsuccessfully."

Lobmardi also said there’s no evidence that glyphosate causes lymphoma to get worse and the plaintiff's own doctors said it wasn't caused by Roundup or Ranger Pro.

Lobmardi is homing in on contradicting testimony about whether the Tyvek 400 bodysuit is adequate protection for spraying pesticides. Plaintiff's toxicology expert says it's not and called it a 'dust suit,' Monsanto's expert says it is. Sounds like a whole other lawsuit to me.

Lobmardi wraps Monsanto's closings asking the jury to rely on the "human evidence, which is the best evidence." He said the human evidence tells you that glyphosate doesn’t cause cancer.

The jury is heading into deliberations this morning in a landmark trial over claims Monsanto's herbicides gave a school groundskeeper cancer. Here's my recap of what's at stake. bit.ly/2OU8UOg

The judge just finished instructing 12 jurors and 4 alternates, and they retired to deliberate. I'll be sitting outside the San Francisco courtroom for the rest of the day waiting for a verdict. Who thinks they'll reach one today?

The jury is breaking for lunch and will be back by 1:30. They haven't had any questions for the court yet.

Fun courtroom note: One of Monsanto's attorneys has been reading Tolstoy while he waits for the verdict, while a man working on the plaintiff's legal team has been reading a Toni Morrison novel.

The jury is back from lunch and it sounds like they have a question. Counsel for both parties are reviewing the question.

The judge is in the courtroom. She says the jury wants all of the plaintiff's medical records and they want to review transcript from one of the witnesses. The judge says she'll tell the jury none of the medical records are in evidence. Counsel is reviewing the transcript.

The judge tells counsel, FYI the jurors requested Post-Its. Monsanto's counsel quipped, "we object, your honor!" That one got a chuckle.

Jurors are taking a break at 3:15 and the judge is coming out to talk to the attorneys at 3:20. The clerk said it's not necessarily going to be on the record, so probably not a verdict.

The judge just explained how she's going to deal with the jury after the verdict comes down, so that the attorneys have a chance to ask them questions without the media present. ITMT, the jurors have asked for markers and a large board, she said.

The jury is gone for the day. No verdict. They'll be back tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.

The jury is about to head into their second day of deliberations. A lot of people in the courtroom think they'll decide Johnson v. Monsanto today. My bet's on tomorrow. Whuddya think?

The jury has asked the attorneys to provide all of the admissions and stipulations that came up during trial. Counsel for both sides are combing through the transcripts pulling them now. Might take some time.

Gotta say the vibe between opposing counsel is very cordial and lighthearted. Both sides are cracking jokes. (Nice to see, because that is not always the case.)

Judge is in the courtroom, and she says the jury wants to know what the definition of "ordinary consumer" is. Counsel for the plaintiff says there is no definition for ordinary consumer and "I don't think we can just make one up."

The parties agreed to just refer the jury to their instructions, which doesn't define "ordinary consumer." The judge also said the jury's request for a list of stipulations and admissions is "kind of a broad question."

Counsel for the plaintiff just flip-flopped and suggested the judge read a phrase in a state statute that mentions "ordinary consumer." Monsanto disagrees, saying it'll just confuse jurors.

The judge sides with Monsanto and says she'll refer the jury to the instruction mentioning "ordinary consumer." The judge notes that the jury asked for a written copy of the stipulations and admissions, but Monsanto's counsel wants the court reporter to instead read them aloud.

Monsonto's atty George Lombardi of Winston & Strawn says the jury only heard the stipulations & admissions and that makes a difference. "If you hand them a written copy of it, it puts in a different posture than what was originally presented to them," he says. The judge says OK.

The judge left the courtroom and the attorneys have gone back to waiting. Standby!

The clerk just told the attorneys the judge will be out shortly.

The judge is back, off the record, and said she found a section in the state criminal statute that says words that aren't defined during trial will have their"ordinary everyday meanings." She suggests she tells the jury that "because we didn't really answer their question."

Monsanto's counsel disagrees, saying the jurors will just get more confused, since they already responded to their question. The judge says, okay, but if they ask again what "ordinary consumer" means, she's going to refer them to the criminal statute.

1/2 The jury is taking a 10 minute break. For those following closely, here's the verdict form they're filling out.

2/2 The rest of the verdict form.

The judge is back in the courtroom. She says she wanted to inform them of a "development." Turns out the jury thinks that last night janitors threw away a Roundup bottle that was evidence in the jury room. "The Roundup bottle is missing," she says.

The parties agreed to get the jurors another one. "Everyone needs a good side mystery," Monsanto's counsel quips.

The jury is breaking for lunch until 1:30 p.m. PST. No verdict yet.

The jury is back to deliberating. The parties found an extra Roundup bottle to replace the one in evidence that everyone assumes was thrown away last night.

And we've got another jury question...

Plaintiff's counsel just read the jury question to himself and exclaimed, "Oh boy." His co-counsel adds, "I don't know where to even start on that one."

The judge is in the courtroom. She says the jury has asked for the "historical controls" and discrepancies of certain mouse studies that an expert testified to. "They’re clearly really sifting through that evidence," the judge says. The attorneys are working on it.

The attorneys responded to the question. Based on it though, counsel for the plaintiff say they don't think the jury will reach a verdict today.

There's 15 minutes left before the jury breaks for the day. It does not look like there's going to be a verdict. But hey, you never know.

And the jury left for the day. We'll all be back here tomorrow at 9:30. My bet is they'll reach a verdict before the weekend.

Back in the courtroom and the jury went into deliberations. The plaintiff's attorneys are all planning on heading back home this weekend (none of them live here in San Francisco), so they certainly think it'll happen soon. What do you think?

Jury is taking a 10 minute break. It's been quiet, and there haven't been any jury questions this morning so far.

The clerk just informed the attorneys that the jury is taking a 12:15 to 1:15 p.m. lunch break, so I'm guessing they don't plan to reach a verdict before then. (That's no super unusual - jurors tend to like to stick around for the free lunch before they announce a verdict.)