Thread by @doratki

I’m covering opening arguments of the first federal trial over claims that Monsanto’s Roundup causes cancer this morning. The line to get into the courtroom was hella long.

Judge Chhabria is in the courtroom and asked attorneys if there are any issues he needs to address before bringing in the jury. Both sides are asking the judge to reconsider some pre-trial rulings, mostly re what's admissible during the 1st causation phase of this 2-phase trial.

Judge Chhabria isn't budging on any of his pre-trial rulings. He's calling in the jury in a few minutes.

The jury is in the room. The judge informs them that the first phase of the trial will be solely on whether Monsanto's Roundup caused plaintiff Ed Hardeman's cancer.

Hardeman's attorney, Amy Wagstaff, has begun openings arguments. It's been less than 10 minutes and Judge Chhabria has interrupted her multiple times, asking her to stick to what's at issue in phase one of the trial. Judge: “We’ll get to phase 2 when we get to phase 2."

Monsanto's attorney tried to object to Wagstaff as she was telling the jury they will likely hear from Monsanto employees. Before he explained his objection, the judge replied that he knows what the objection is and it's overruled. Haven't seen that happen at trial before.

Hardeman's attorney has been going through studies showing that the chances of getting non-Hodgkin lymphoma go up more than 200% if an individual is exposed to Monsanto's Roundup for over 10 days. The judge just interrupted her and asked for a sidebar.

Back from the sidebar and Judge Chabbria reminds the jury that what lawyers say in opening and closing arguments is not evidence. (It seems like the judge is pretty skeptical of those studies.)

The plaintiff's attorney just brought up a 3-week-old study that concluded there is a "compelling link" between the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup and increased risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Monsanto's counsel objected to a reference to an email in which a Monsanto employee questioned what they could do to get the EPA to remove Roundup active's ingredient from its Group C - Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans - category in 1985. The judge overruled the objection.

The plaintiff's counsel quotes from an EPA letter to Monsanto in 1985, in which the EPA said it disagrees with Monsanto's conclusion that Roundup shouldn't be Group C based on a mouse study the company conducted.

The EPA told Monsanto in 1985: "We disagree with the registrant's position...the registrant wishes to avoid false positives, while those concerned with the public health wish to avoid false negatives. Hence for this reason alone, Monsanto’s argument is unacceptable..."

After back and forth, the EPA told Monsanto in 1985 to redo its mice study to determine if the active ingredient in Roundup is carcinogenic, but Monsanto refuses, the plaintiff's attorney says.

The plaintiff's attorney notes that @IARCWHO concluded in 2015 that Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate, is a "probable carcinogen," but Monsanto's rep said a month ago there's no evidence it causes cancer. She goes on, but the judge tells her not to get into IARC details.

The judge called a 5 minute break and the jury left the courtroom. He just admonished the plaintiff's attorney for mentioning things that are outside of phase 1 of this two-phase trial.

Judge Chhabria: "You've crossed the line so many times in your opening statement and it’s obviously intentional." The judge said its "totally inappropriate" and if she does it again, "I will tell you tell you to sit down and I will tell you your opening statement is over."

We're back. The judge said he has filed an order demanding the plaintiff's counsel explain why she shouldn't be sanctioned for "crossing the line" multiple times. He noted that the attorney's arguments were inappropriate as were her slides that her team prepared.

The judge warns the attorney, going forward, "if I see a single inappropriate thing on the slide, I'm shutting you down." He calls the jury back in and is reminding the jury again attorney arguments are not evidence.

To be clear, Judge Chhabria is upset because he thinks the plaintiff's attorney has repeatedly made arguments that he explicitly excluded from being mentioned during the 1st phase of trial, which is only suppose to determine whether Monsanto's Roundup caused Ed Hardeman's cancer.

The fact that Judge Chhabria agreed to split this Roundup bellwether trial into two phases was a big win for Monsanto btw. Here's a very good explanation of why that is from my colleague Daniel Siegal. bit.ly/2U3LA2Q

The plaintiff's attorney was able to wrap opening arguments without getting in hot water with the judge again. Brian L. Stekloff of @WWETrialLaw is up now arguing openings for Monsanto.

Fun fact for those following me for the NCAA trial - the same law firm that is representing Monsanto in this Roundup trial, @WWETrialLaw, also represents NCAA in the Alston et al. v. NCAA case.

Monsanto's attorney argues that there over 70,000 new cases of non-Hodgkin lymphoma a year and no one knows what causes it.

Monsanto's attorney is arguing that Ed Hardeman's own cancer doctor says he doesn't know what caused his cancer and the attorneys is blaming Hardeman's non-Hodgkin lymphoma on hepatitis C, which Hardeman's counsel disputes.

Monsanto's attorney tried to show multiple slides showing excerpts from their examination of Hardeman's cancer expert. Judge Chhabria told the attorney to take the slides down. The judge said it is inappropriate to show excerpts from depositions during openings.

Monsanto's counsel is citing multiple studies that purportedly show no links between Roundup's active ingredient and cancer. He said one 2018 study shows that the NHL cancer rates between non-Roundup users and Roundup users are the same.

Monsanto wrapped its opening arguments. The court is taking a 5-minute break before the plaintiff calls the first witness, @UCLA professor Beate Ritz, who is an expert in epidemiology.

Dr. Ritz is on the stand. She's explaining that she tries to determine what causes individuals to get sick by comparing chemical exposure rates and the multiple variables that could impact those rates.

@UCLA's Dr. Ritz is criticizing two of Monsanto's experts, arguing that they have no training in assessing occupational exposure and they've never gone into the field and asked people about their lifetime exposure to chemicals.

Trial is breaking for an hour lunch. The jury left the courtroom and Judge Chhabria asked both sides for written copies of their opening statements. The plaintiff's counsel says she didn't use all of her slides or notes based on the judge's comment she had "crossed the line."

Monsanto asked the judge to prevent plaintiff's counsel from referring to a stat that the chances of getting non-Hodgkin lymphoma goes up more than 200% if an individual is exposed to Monsanto's Roundup for over 2-10 days based on two studies.

The judge said plaintiff's counsel "crossed a line" by including those stats in a slide in her opening arguments, but the judge said he wouldn't bar an expert from interpreting the numbers in the two studies. "It is a bit of a tricky line," he says. Court is breaking for lunch.

Judge Chhabria also took issue with a photo that the plaintiff's counsel showed of Ed Hardeman and his wife during opening arguments. The judge said the photo was designed to show his family and not designed to show his property and that also crossed a line.

We're back. The jury's not in the courtroom yet. Monsanto's counsel asked why the judge stopped him from referring to deposition testimony from the plaintiff's expert during openings. The judge said doing that runs the risk of making the trial "much more jumbled and confusing."

The jury is back in the courtroom and Dr. Ritz is on the stand. She says she "absolutely" thinks that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide is capable of causing non-Hodgkin lymphoma in humans in the way it has been used.

Dr. Ritz is explaining to the jury what a "risk ratio" means, which is getting really technical and includes multiple charts. (The prof prefaced her testimony saying her students even have a hard time understanding risk ratios. I have a feeling the jury isn't totally following.)

Dr. Ritz is testifying on a Swedish 1999 epidemiology study conducted by Lennart Hardell and Mikael Eriksson that showed a group exposed to glyphosate had a 2.3 risk ratio for NHL. But she noted that the study had some biased data and didn't have enough cases, so they redid it.

In the new study, the researchers looked out more cases and concluded that glyphosate exposure had a 3.04 odds ratio for NHL. The professor says: "I think both studies tell the same story. But in the first study you couldn’t rule out random error."

The court called another break. There should be about 30 more minutes of trial left before the court recesses for the day. ITMT, I'm taking a break from live Tweeting to write, but will update if there are any 💥.

Trial wrapped for the day. The plaintiff's attorney hasn't finished examining Dr. Ritz, so she will be back on the stand tomorrow morning at 8:30 a.m.

The plaintiff's counsel, Aimee Wagstaff, filed her response tonight to the judge's order demanding she explain why she shouldn't be sanctioned for her opening arguments in the Monsanto trial, which the judge said "crossed the line." It's a fun read.

The upshot? She says reasonable minds can differ on what can be allowed in as evidence during this two-phase trial over claims Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller causes cancer. It was a 💥 packed day in court (mostly due to Judge Chhabria). Here's my recap: bit.ly/2T0rolS

Day 2 of the Monsanto Roundup trial and the line into the courtroom is long - not hella long tho.

The judge is in the courtroom and said he'll hold a hearing on the order to show cause on why Aimee Wagstaff shouldn't be sanctioned after his criminal calendar today at 2:45 p.m. PST

The jury is back in the courtroom and Beate Ritz, who is an epidemiologist from @UCLA's School of Public Health. is back on the stand, testifying on agricultural studies.

Ritz says there was a "major change" in the use of Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller and its active ingredient glyphosate nationwide between 1993 and 2013, partly due to a change in farming practices and the marketing of glyphosate. Here are two maps she showed the jurors.

Ritz is criticizing a multi-phase agricultural study. From 1993 to 1995, researchers collected pesticide-use surveys from 54,000 farmers. The researchers then tried to follow up through phone calls in 1999, but they only received 62 percent response rate, Ritz says.

Ritz criticized researchers for filling in the responses for the 38% of farmers who didn't respond and their questions were not consistent. She adds that she's been teaching her students her criticisms of this study for 4 years before she was contacted by attys in this case.

Ritz is summarizing 5 peer-reviewed papers that have been published between 2000 and 2019 that all conclude the agricultural study in the '90s had persistant exposure misclassification problems.

Trial is taking a 10-minute break. On a personal note, I have grown to despise wooden pews and believe sitting on them should qualify as a form of torture. Really wishing the federal courthouse took after SFO and had its own yoga room rn.

We're back. Ritz is continuing to criticize the agricultural health study that started in the 1990s. The plaintiff's attorney is really trying to drive home the point that this study is unreliable, because it mixes up exposure data and compounds the problem over time.

Plaintiff's counsel wrapped the direct examination of Ritz, who finished by criticizing a stat that Monsanto presented in trial openings. Tamarra Johnson of @WWETrialLaw is up for Monsanto now cross-examining the prof. There have already been multiple objections and a sidebar.

Johnson has pointed out that Ritz hasn't treated patients since 1989 and that in her lesson plans, she shows her students at least one slide that lists the advantages of the agricultural health study. Ritz concedes the point, but notes she has a slide showing disadvantages too.

Johnson is probing @UCLA's Beate Ritz on slides she uses during her lectures, but she's pushing back, repeatedly saying that they are not about glyphosate and there is more to her lessons than the slides. "You want to get my lecture, you have to come," she tells the attorney.

Trial is breaking for lunch. We'll be back in an hour, standby...

FYI - @RobertKennedyJr of @forthepeople was in the gallery this a.m. He also observed most of the 1st trial in state court last year that ended in a $78M Monsanto loss, which is on appeal. Kennedy is co-counsel in multiple cases in the MDL that haven't gone to trial yet.

We're back. Monsanto's counsel is cross examining professor Beate Ritz. The attorney is questioning Ritz on details about the dates when various studies were conducted and their sample sizes, among other things. It's unclear how the q's contradict Ritz's direct testimony.

The attorney points out that Ritz served as a member of an external advisory board who reviewed the Agricultural Health Study between 2001 to 2017 and served as chair, but questions why she didn't bring up her issues with the study.

Ritz responds that when she became a member of the board at that point the study had already been going on for years and it was too late to fix its problems. "The baby had already fallen into the well," Ritz said.

Judge Chhabria just called a 10 min. break and the jury left the courtroom.

Weird moment: Judge Chabbria just said he guessed plaintiff's counsel, Aimee Wagstaff, wasn't in the courtroom, but she raised her hand and said she is here. He responded, "Wishful thinking."

The exchange elicited a loud "whoaaaaa..." from folks in the gallery. Wagstaff raised up her arms looking exasperated and said "Just for being here?" The judge responded that she had opened the door and then left the courtroom. It's unclear what he meant by that.

The parties are back and they finished questioning Ritz. Just a reminder, Judge Chhabria will be holding a hearing within the hour on whether he'll sanction Wagstaff for crossing the line during plaintiff Ed Hardeman's openings by repeatedly mentioning restricted material.

The parties played a short videotape testimony from Monsanto official Daniel Goldstein, who defended the decades-long Agricultural Health Study as the "most robust and reliable data set" on the effects of pesticide use. And with that the jury recessed for the day.

Judge Chhabria set the sanctions hearing to start at 3 p.m. He also told the parties it's not relevant whether plaintiff Ed Hardeman's cancer is almost in remission for the first stage of trial and that shouldn't be mentioned. Monsanto brought it up during openings.

The judge is back, and asks why Wagstaff shouldn't be sanctioned. She has her co-counsel, Jennifer Ann Moore of Moore Law Group PLLC, representing her in the hearing, and a partner from her firm flew in from Denver for it.

Judge Chhabria said he thinks Aimee Wagstaff acted in bad faith in her opening statements and "blatantly" violated his pre-trial orders. He listed 6 things that Wagstaff said during her openings that were violations of his pre-trial orders.

Judge Chhabria says Aimmee Wagstaff's "steely" response to him during openings is evidence she was clearly ready for him to challenge her. Wagstaff responded: "The fact I can handle you coming down on me in front of a jury..the fact I have composure should not be used against me"

Aimee Wagstaff says the judge is not being fair for using her composure against her and says she wants to argue the points for herself, because his sanctions order appears to have come down to what her "intent" was during openings.

Judge Chhabria called Wagstaff's violations "premediated," which Wagstaff's co-counsel took issue with because she said it suggests her alleged actions were criminal when there's no evidence she intended to violate the judge's pre-trial orders.

The judge asked Wagstaff's co-counsel how much money she thinks he should sanction Wagstaff, if he disagrees with her arguments. He notes that he's sanctioned another attorney $500 for violating his pre-trial orders in openings and he says Wagstaff's violations were far worse.

The attorney is saying no amount is appropriate, and Wagstaff shouldn't be sanctioned. The judge is now saying every lawyer on the team should be held responsible.

The judge turned to the plaintiff Ed Hardeman, who he required to attend the hearing, and said he is ultimately responsible for his lawyers' actions and "if the sanctions don't work," and their misconduct continues, he will dismiss Hardeman's case with prejudice.

The parties are now holding an on-the-record sidebar. I have to say, this whole hearing has been bizarre.

The hearing is over. The judge didn't rule, but I'd say it's pretty obvious which way he's gonna go.

What happened in Judge Chhabria's courtroom today will stick with me for a while. But for those who haven't been following the live tweets, here's my recap of the second day of the first federal trial over claims Monsanto's Roundup causes cancer. bit.ly/2IFE9gO

Judge Chhabria is back on the bench, and he requested a sidebar with the attorneys. He said he knows that there's been "high drama" over the past two days, but he needs to discuss another drama involving a juror.

Last night, Judge Chhabria sanctioned Wagstaff and ordered her to pay the court $500 for her misconduct. He also said other members of the firm should probably be sanctioned, but he is postponing the issue to avoid distracting plaintiffs' counsel from trial prep.

After a short sidebar, Judge Chhabria recessed to his chambers. He'll be back in 5 minutes with the jury. It's unclear what the juror drama is.

The judge is back, without the jury, and having another sidebar, It seems like there's drama with 1 of the jurors. (The trial began with 9 jurors, but a juror was dropped after the first day, because his wife's work hrs were cut the same day he was selected to serve on the jury.)

The judge finished the sidebar discussion and called in the jury. Whatever the issue was seems to be have been resolved. The plaintiff's counsel are showing a video of Dr. Christopher Portier, who testified in Australia because he recently had a heart attack and can't travel.

Portier says he worked for the government in public health for about 35 years and still is actively involved in advisory panels after retiring. Recently he partnered with Google to monitor air pollution in communities as Google vehicles were mapping streets in the Bay Area.

Portier said he has also worked with IARC in determining if glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. He says it was the second highest classification in IARC's 5-tier classification scheme.

Portier andothers wrote a letter saying @IARCWHO concluded that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. Portier acknowledged that 2 authors of the letter also worked on the Agricultural Health Study, which UCLA prof Ritz spent most of her testimony ystday trying to discredit.

Portier is giving a detailed explanation of a mice study that tested 400 mice for tumors after being exposed to glyphosate, which the plaintiff's counsel mentioned during openings.

I'm taking a break from the Monsanto trial to sit in on the omnibus motion hearing in PG&E's bankruptcy, which is also pretty high-stakes for many individuals who are seeking recovery for liability from the California wildfires. I'll be back in a bit to update on Monsanto.

Dr. Portier is still testifying on direct about studies showing glyphosate's link to cancer. It doesn't look like he will get to cross examination today. Also, it appears that the judge has excused another juror - they're down to 7 - although he never explained why on the record.

Portier is currently explaining the different quality of studies done on humans, in petri dishes, on mammals, etc. He says one of the best studies re tobacco's link to cancer involved U.K. docs who quit smoking. Those who quit had lower cancer rates than those who kept smoking.

Trial is breaking for an hour lunch. Judge Chhabria is requiring everyone in the courtroom to stay here for 5 minutes to give the jury time to go to lunch and avoid running into them. ITMT, he's ruling on a couple of Monsanto's objections to Portier's testimony.

Judge Chhabria overruled most of Monsanto's objections. The judge argued w/ plaintiff's atty Brent Wisner over whether Monsanto waived objections to Portier's letter to European regulators about glyphosate's carcinogenic effects. The judge didn't think the objection was waived.

We're back from lunch and Dr. Portier is continuing his direct testimony. He says after reviewing a range of studies, its clear that "glyphosate can cause cancer in mammals," and can produce mammalian damage and oxidative stress in human cells."There is very little uncertainty."

Full disclosure, I dropped the ball on live tweeting yesterday afternoon, because I was juggling the Monsanto trial and multiple PG&E hearings in bankruptcy court, which are way too dense to live tweet.

Yesterday, Judge Chhabria attempted to explain his remark that Aimee Wagstaff's "steely" composure showed she intended to violate his orders. Here's my recap of trial and his explanation, along with screenshots of the transcript with his explaination. bit.ly/2Syd2nJ

And in case anyone is wondering why no tweets today, the judge doesn’t hold trials on Thursdays.

I won't be covering the Monsanto trial today - I'm tied up in another hearing - follow @helenchristophi for live tweets.

This weekend is brought to you by this bird.

I set up a new page that unrolls all of my live tweets from the first week of the first federal trial over allegations that Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller causes cancer. #sundaylongread bit.ly/2C1ceCc

I'm in Judge Chhabria's courtroom, but word is, a juror is sick so the court won't hold trial today. It sounds like the judge will still hear arguments on motions this morning. Attorneys for both sides are in the courtroom.

Judge Chhabria is back on the bench. He says he has some issues to address. To start, he's excluding Monsanto's expert, Daniel Arber, from testifying that the plaintiff's pathology suggests his non-Hodgkin lymphoma was caused by hepatitis C.

Judge Chhabria said Monsanto didn't disclose its expert's opinion that the plaintiff's pathology suggests his hep C caused his NHL. Also, the opinion "was inconsistent with his report," the judge said. Monsanto's counsel is pushing back, but Judge Chhabria isn't budging.

Judge Chhabria also said Monsanto "opened the door" to allowing the plaintiff's expert to testify on @IARCWHO's conclusion regarding glyphosate's geotoxicity and that its internal folks reached related findings about it in 1999. Monsanto is pushing back hard.

After a lot of argument from Monsanto, Judge Chhabria is standing by his ruling that plaintiff's expert can mention a report prepped by a doctor Monsanto hired who concluded in 1999 that glyphosate could impact genotoxicity. "This hardly blows opens the door," he says.

The judge said he'll think more about whether the plaintiff's counsel is allowed to mention @IARCWHO's conclusion regarding genotoxicity. He reminds the parties he doesn't want the trial to become a fight over what different regulatory agencies have found.

It sounds like the plaintiff will rest his case in chief on Wednesday and closing arguments of phase 1 of the trial is planned for March 12. If the jury finds Monsanto's Roundup caused the plaintiff's cancer, the parties will present openings in phase 2 of the trial the next day.

Monsanto doesn't want the plaintiff's counsel to show the jury the actual sprayer that Ed Hardeman used to spray Roundup. The judge says he doesn't understand the objection.

The judge notes that the jury has already seen a picture of the sprayer, and he repeatedly says he doesn't understand Monsanto's objection to bringing in the actual sprayer used.

The judge tells Monsanto's counsel that "the plaintiffs are not allowed to spray you with the sprayer," but other than that, the judge says he's not sure why he should prohibit them from showing it to the jury.

The judge says if this case ends in a mistrial, they'll retry it in May. If there's a verdict on one side, he says he might want to "press the pause button" on the rest of the federal cases, so that the parties can consider settlement negotiations.

His reasoning is that there should be three jury verdicts over claims that Monsanto's Roundup causes cancer by early May that could give other plaintiffs' counsel guidance.

Here's my recap from today in the courtroom. The jury wasn't there, but Monsanto's attorneys and the judge argued over the "Parry Door" and how wide Monsanto has opened it. bit.ly/2tQcC1Z

Just a heads up - I’m not covering the Monsanto trial today. (Trying to catch closings in a different trial over claims Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder caused a dying woman’s cancer.) I’ll likely be back in SF tomorrow.

I'm back in SF outside of Judge Chhabria's courtroom covering the Hardeman v. Monsanto trial. Stay tuned for live tweets...

The clerk just told the parties that trial won't begin before 8:45 today due to issues with a juror. Reminder, there are only six jurors left on the panel, and if they lose another, there could be a mistrial.

The jury is back. Judge Chhabria told the attorneys not to worry - one of the jurors had a call at 8:45 that needed to happen before trial, but he said there aren't any more issues.

Hardeman's cancer expert, Dr. Dennis Weisenburger, is on the stand, testifying on hepatitis C's link to cancer. One of Monsanto's main defense arguments is that the plaintiff's cancer was caused by hep C and not Roundup.

Weisenburger is testifying on a study that shows when a patient gets rid of hepatitis C, damaged cells die off.

Weisenburger says Hardeman was cured of hepatitis C in 2006 and any abnormal cells caused by the virus would have disappeared. "The abnormal cells are dependent on the virus."

Weisenburger says if the plaintiff Ed Hardeman was going to get lymphoma from hepatitis C, he would have gotten it when he had the infection and not nine years after he was cured of the virus.

Weisenburger says Hardeman's obesity was a minor risk factor and only increased his risk of getting non-Hodgkin lymphoma by at most 30 percent. He said the biggest risk was his high exposure to Roundup.

Weisenburger says "it wouldn’t be logical to say, 'Ok we know he has this substantial risk factor, but we don’t know what caused his lymphoma.' That really wouldn’t make sense... We identified a cause. More likely than not it’s Roundup."

With that, the plaintiff's counsel wrapped direct and Brian L. Stekloff of @WWETrialLaw begins cross examining Weisenburger.

Brian is drilling Weisenburger on whether he has ever used his differential diagnosis method to diagnose non-Hogkins lymphoma. After some push back, he concedes he's never used this specific method to diagnose NHL.

Brian gets Weisenburger to concede that he hasn't told his colleagues that he thinks glyphosate causes cancer during meetings. "No because that wouldn't have been appropriate. They were administrative meetings. They weren't about what causes cancer."

Brian is trying to drive home the point that Weisenburger never expressed his concerns to his colleagues that glyphosate causes cancer.

Weisenburger tries to explain that studies addressing glyphosate's link to cancer were already published. "There was nothing more to do."

Brian gets Weisenburger to concede he's never told another oncologist, pathologist, patients or other chairs at the hospital that he thinks Roundup causes cancer. He repeatedly says it's not apart of his practice.

Brian is questioning Weisenburger slides on days of glyphosate use and non-Hodgkin lymphoma risks. Weisenburger didn't show the slides during his direct testimony, and he's trying to explain why, but the attorney keeps cutting him off.

The attorney is asking Weisenburger why he didn't present certain information to the jury. Weisenburger, "it would have taken me an hour to present all of these and it would have been redundant." The atty responds "the jury will determine that."

Monsanto's counsel is pointing out stats regarding frequency, dose and lifetime days of Roundup exposure that weren't statistically significant. Weisenburger pushes back, saying some aren't statistically significant but others are borderline.

Judge Chabbria is calling a break, back in 10.

We're back. Monsanto's counsel is trying to pin Weisenburger down on Roundup's alleged cancer latency period. "We don't really know what the intermediate latency is for Roundup," Weisenburger says, but he estimates it's 20 years.

Monsanto's atty points to a study Weisenburger did in the 1980s that looked at farmers who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma & notes that Roundup came on the market in '74. Weisenburger: "These people in this study also had sufficient time to be exposed on the upslope of the curve"

Monsanto's attorney is now turning to multiple studies that were done in the '80s and '90s. He seems to be trying to point out that based on Weisenburger's 20-year latency estimate, none of the farmers studied would have had enough time to develop cancer from Roundup.

The judge is calling another break. Back in 5.

We're back. Monsanto's attorney is focusing on the point that you can't tell from cells if a cancer patient used Roundup and Weisenburger never told oncologists that he thought a patient used it.

The attorney is pushing Weisenburger on causation. He asks if Weisenburger didn't know the cause of cancer for 70 percent of the 1,000 non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients he's treated. Weisenburger says that's a "guestimate," but says they don't take detailed histories of patients.

Weisenburger: "Physicians don't ask about Roundup. They don't even ask about pesticides." Thats often why physicians don't know the cause of cancer, because they don't pursue it in detail, he says.

Weisenburger concedes that the "vast majority" of non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients were not exposed to Roundup.

Weisenburger concedes that they can't rule out that Hardeman could have had an active hepatitis B infection between 1966 and 2005.

Judge Chhabria is calling a lunch break until 12:30. Standby...

We're back. Monsanto's attorney is trying to get Weisenburger to concede that a study shows only patients who are treated within a year of contracting hepatitis have lower risks of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Wesenburger: "Your interpretation of the paper is wrong." The atty moves on

Monsanto's counsel is bringing up more studies, allegedly showing that people whose hepatitis C were cured still developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Weisenburger repeatedly says the studies are misleading.

Monsanto's counsel is trying to get Weisenburger to concede that chronic hepatitis C infection played a roll of Ed Hardeman's lymphoma. He responds it's "highly unlikely." The attorney then read from an earlier deposition, where Weisenburger said "it very well could have."

Monsanto's counsel wrapped cross for now. Hardeman's attorney is now up, and she's giving him a chance to clarify his prior deposition that Monsanto's counsel homed in on.

Weisenburger explains he didn't discuss frequency data that shows low Roundup exposure doesn't increase non-Hodgkin lymphoma risks. He says intensity of the exposure is "a better surrogate mark" and it’s more important to look at the dose response to high and intense exposure.

Weisenburger says 20 years is the median latency period for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma allegedly caused by Roundup and he said half the cases fall earlier on the bell curve.

Weisenburger is testifying that plaintiff Ed Hardeman was treated for hepatitis C within the first year of discovering it, so that would have significantly lowered his risk of obtaining non-Hodgkin lymphoma from the virus.

Weisenburger says less than 1 percent of patients with chronic hepatitis C develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 10 years and those patients have a "much higher" risk of getting liver cancer.

The parties wrapped with Weisenburger and taking a break. The rest of the day will be spent showing video testimony before the jury is let go around 2:45. They'll be back here on Friday morning. I believe after the videos, the plaintiff will rest its case in chief.

The plaintiff is playing video testimony of Monsanto's corporate representative Bill Reeves, who has a Ph.D. in toxicology.

Plaintiff's attorney points out a 1997 from an in-house Monsanto epidemiologist who wrote that the agricultural health study, which Monsanto has touted, said the study's exposure assessment "will be inaccurate." Reeves says "those are the words on the page."

Reeves has definitely been trained on how to respond to attorneys' questions. He has repeatedly responded to q's by saying "is there a document you would like to discuss? if there's no document, I can't answer." Plaintiff's counsel objected to him being non-responsive.

Plaintiff’s counsel points out a 1986 document in which the EPA told Monsanto its mouse study testing the safety of glyphosate was based on insufficient data and needed to be redone.

The parties wrapped for the day and the jury is gone until Friday morning at 8:30 a.m. The plaintiff’s counsel only has about 15 minutes left before resting.

The judge reiterated that he wants closings to happen on Tuesday and he wants to see the slides from both sides given what happened in openings.

The judge also wants to set a time to discuss any concerns that the attorneys have about what might be off limits in closings.

Here's my recap of Weisenburger's testimony from today. Both sides got into the meat of their causation arguments. law360.com/articles/11358…

FYI - the next case to go to trial over claims that Monsanto's Roundup causes cancer has been pushed back from March 18 to March 25. The case is Pilliod v. Monsanto Co., case number RG17862702, in the Superior Court of the state of California, County of Alameda.

In that case, jury selection will begin on March 25 and opening arguments on March 28th.

Another heads up, I won’t be covering the Monsanto trial tomorrow. I’ll be back there next week for closings and verdict watch.

I'm back in Judge Chhabria's courtroom this morning covering the Hardeman v. Monsanto jury trial. The parties are expected to give closings tomorrow. Standby for tweets...

The jury is back and Monsanto's witness Dr. Alexandra Levine, who is a hematologist oncologist, is on the stand. Monsanto's counsel is going through her career accomplishments.

Dr. Levine is explaining to the jury how cancer forms from the environment or DNA that causes cellular mutations. She's also explaining cancer latency periods and how it typically takes a "long, long time" before cancer ever pops above the line of diagnosability.

Levine explains that non-Hodgkin lymphoma is a cancer of the immune system and there are 60 different types of NHL. Apprx. 75,000 people, or 1 in 47, get it annually. She says Ed Hardeman has the most common type, which about 30-35% get.

Levine says she's never used the differential diagnosis method, which the plaintiff's expert used, to determine the cause of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. She says the method is not a valid scientific method.

Levine says she doesn't believe Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller or its active ingredient caused Ed Hardeman's cancer and "we just don't know" what caused his cancer. She says the most likely cause of his lymphoma was his 39-year "chronic infection of hepatitis C."

Levine says with chronic hep. C infection can cause genetic mutations and lead to liver scarring, or cirrhosis. She says it's a proven cause of liver cancer, but "in our case here," non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Levine says Hardeman's hep. C infection was "quite high," because he had a "viral load" of 732,000 copies for every droplet of blood in January 2005. He was cured of hep C the following year, according to his expert.

Levine notes that Hardeman had active hepatitis B in the past, but as of 2005, he didn't have it. She says she can't tell how long he had hep B.

Levine is repeating that there's "no medical evidence" that Roundup or its active ingredient caused Ed Hardeman's non-Hodgkin lymphoma. She says his cancer was most likely caused by chronic hep C. A "secondary factor" could be his hepatitis B.

With that, Monsanto's counsel is passing the witness. Hardeman's attorney @JAMooreKentucky begins by asking Levine about her oncology practice. Levine concedes that there could be more than one cause of cancer.

Levine concedes that she’s not giving an opinion about whether Roundup is genotoxic or how much Hardeman's use of the weedkiller might have impacted his health. "It doesn't matter to me," she says.

Levine concedes that she doesn't specialize in pesticides and she doesn't ask her patients about their pesticide use. @JAMooreKentucky asks Levine: "By not asking about your patient’s pesticide use, aren’t you assuming the cause is unknown?" She replies "no."

@JAMooreKentucky asks Levine if she knows that the @AmericanCancer considers exposure to certain chemicals a non-Hodgkin lymphoma risk factor. Levine replies "I recall that."

Levine concedes that Hardeman's weight and age were not risk factors that likely caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma and his hep C viral load dropped after 12 weeks of treatment in 2005.

Levine says she disagrees with Hardeman's doctor that he was "cured" of hepatitis C in 2006. She says the doctor still treated him so he was still concerned about it.

Hardeman's attorney is pushing Levine on the evidence she uses to support her opinion that hepatitis likely caused Hardeman's cancer. After ~20 minutes, the attorney points at least one contradiction in a report Levine cites. Levine concedes "Yes, it is confusing."

Levine repeats that Hardeman had active hepatitis C for 39 years and it could have caused mutations at any time. "It didn’t matter if he had a live virus in his blood or not," she says.

Hardeman's attorney is trying to challenge Levine's testimony that hepatitis C is a likely cause of Hardeman's cancer by pointing to multiple studies that conclude the risks of getting NHL "goes to zero" when the virus isn't active.

Levine won't concede that the NHL risk drops during hepatitis C treatment or immunity. She says that can happen under certain circumstances but she can't say that for "non-Hodgkin lymphoma in general." She reiterates that NHL is a "big word" and includes over 60 types of cancer.

Before the lunch break, Hardeman's attorney had estimated she had about 20 more minutes of questions for Levine. The 20 minutes turned into well over an hour, partly I think because Levine isn't budging in her testimony on hep C. Levine's repeating her opinion at this point.

Hardeman's attorney wraps cross by asking if Levine knows Hardeman's expert pathologist Dr. Weisenburger, who also works with her at the City of Hope. She says she does and he's an excellent pathologist. "I hired him," she says.

Levine's examination wrapped with her conceding that you can't tell by a certain gene mutation if Hardeman's cancer was caused by hepatitis C. Next up, is Monsanto's expert pathologist Daniel Arber, who is a professor at University of Chicago.

Monsanto's counsel will spend the next 20 minutes or so establishing Arber's expertise before breaking for the day. ITMT, I'm going to take a break from Twitter. ✌️

Here's my recap of Levine's testimony yesterday in Hardeman v. Monsanto. The parties will be giving their closing arguments in the first causation phase of the two-part trial this morning. bit.ly/2F6zqkx

Judge Chhabria is back on the bench. He went through plaintiff's closing slides to make sure they don't have a repeat of the "line crossings" that came up openings. Hardeman's closing arguments will start in 10 mins.

The courtroom is full. Judge Chhabria said they could try to move around "Monsanto's army of lawyers" to make sure no member of the public is denied a seat. The judge called in the jury and he's reading them instructions.

Judge tells the jury they must determine if Hardeman's exposure to Monsanto's Roundup was a "substantial factor" in causing his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. A substantial factor is something a reasonable person could consider caused harm & doesn't have to be the only cause of the harm.

The judge tells the jury conduct is not a "substantial factor" if the same harm would have happened without the conduct.

Ed Hardeman's attorney, Aimee Wagstaff of Andrus Wagstaff PC, has begun closing arguments and she's walking the jury through on the causation jury instruction.

Monsanto's counsel just interrupted Wagstaff and without hearing the objection the judge says "yes, we can have a sidebar."

After a short sidebar, the judge instructs the jury to disregard Wagstaff's last two sentences. He tells the jury: "We have spent a lot of time with both lawyers with laying ground rules for what arguments they can make and what they can’t make."

Wagstaff points out that Monsanto's expert Dr. Alexandra Levine conceded she didn't consider Roundup as a cancer risk factor.

Wagstaff says Monsanto's two experts admitted they never studied the health impact of pesticide use, while Hardeman's experts have years of experience studying pesticides link to cancer.

Wagstaff says there is "overwhelming" evidence that the risk of getting non-Hodgkin lymphoma increases the more you use Roundup. "The dose makes the poison," she says, repeating one of Hardeman's experts.

Wagstaff is pointing to EPA documents from 1985. In them, the EPA's toxicology branch found that Roundup's active ingredient is a category C, "possible oncogene," which means that it has the potential to cause cancer.

Wagstaff cites 2 studies that concluded Roundup causes genetic damage in blood. She also mentions a report prepared by Dr. James Parry, who was hired Monsanto. Parry concluded that there is "strong evidence that glyphosate may be genotoxic," she says.

(Judge Chhabria wasn't originally going to allow the Parry report to come in, but during trial, the judge said Monsanto had "opened the door" to the topic.)

Wagstaff points to an epidemiological study, called the McDuffie study, which concluded there is a 212 percent increased risk of getting non-Hodgkin lymphoma when using Roundup more than 2 days a year.

Wagstaff says the decades-long Agricultural Health Study is "so flawed" that it's impossible to conclude anything about exposure to Roundup's active ingredient.

Wagstaff notes that Monsanto's own epidemiologist, Dr. John Acquavella, said in 1997 that the Agricultural Health Study's exposure assessment "will be inaccurate" due to exposure misclassification.

Ed Hardeman sprayed Roundup for 3-4 hours a day during the summers for 26 years, using approximately 6,000 gallons of Roundup during his lifetime, Wagstaff says.

Wagstaff is driving home the point that Monsanto's experts didn't consider, genotoxicity, pesticide use or exposure to Roundup at all in reaching their conclusions.

Wagstaff has turned to whether hepatitis C caused Ed Hardeman's cancer, which is arguably Monsanto's strongest defense. She emphasizes that Hardeman was cured of hep C in 2006, 9 years before he was diagnosed with NHL and the virus never resurfaced during his chemotherapy.

Wagstaff points out that Monsanto's expert, Dr. Alexandra Levine, didn't even know Roundup was a pesticide. (This is true - during cross, Levine said she thought it was an herbicide and not a pesticide. Hardeman's attorney told her herbicides are considered pesticides.)

Wagstaff wrapped openings. Trial is taking a lunch break before Monsanto's counsel gives its closing arguments.

Monsanto's counsel wants the judge to give a curative instruction that tells the jury "you may not consider Roundup and any factor worked together" to cause Hardeman's lymphoma. The judge says that "may not be quite accurate."

The judge says "my pretty strong reaction" is that a curative instruction on causation alone is not necessary.

And we're back. Brian L. Stekloff of @WWETrialLaw is presenting Monsanto's closing arguments.

Stekloff says Ed Hardeman's cancer isn't unique, and there was no test done to determine its cause. He says "this case is not about Roundup versus hepatitis C." It's not an "either/or" case, and "there's no way to know what caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma," he says.

Stekloff says none of Hardeman's doctors say Roundup caused his cancer or put Roundup in his medical records and Hardeman used a pathologist to conclude that Roundup causes cancer, instead of an oncologist.

Stekloff is defending Dr. Levine's use of the term "hit-and-run" in her discussion of hepatitis C. The idea is that when the virus is active, it can cause gene mutation that later causes cancer even after hep C is cured. Stekloff says the term is in scientific literature.

"Between 1966 and 2005, those [cancer] mutations could have occurred," Stekloff says.

Stekloff says the fact that Hardeman was being treated with antiviral therapy during his chemotherapy is irrelevant to the cause of Hardeman's cancer and the hour the parties spent yesterday arguing over it was a "sideshow."

Stekloff is spending a lot of time trying to discredit Dr. Dennis Weisenburger, pointing out that he admitted to "changing and clarifying" his testimony during trial.

Stekloff repeats the argument he made during openings that there hasn't been a spike in non-Hodgkin lymphoma since the 1990s, even though Roundup use has gone up.

In regards to the @IARCWHO 2015 study, Stekloff tells the jury "just because Europe thinks something, doesn’t mean you should think something."

Stekloff says the plaintiff's expert spent an hour "trashing" the Agricultural Health Study, while Monsanto's expert thoughtfully went through the study.

Stekloff argues the 5 studies the plaintiffs cite looked at small sample sizes, were conducted less than 20 years after Roundup was first on the market or didn't adjust for other pesticides.

Stekloff has wrapped Monsanto's closings. Hardeman's attorney has 22 minutes to give the rebuttal argument before the case is sent to the jury. Gotta say, all six jurors had stone-cold expressions at the end of Monsanto's closings. Hard to read.

Hardeman's attorney, Aimee Wagstaff, is back up, arguing that all of the studies need to be considered together to determine causation. Stekloff interrupted her and objected to Wagstaff showing a quote from testimony, but the judge overruled the objection.

The judge just requested a sidebar, which is the second time he's interrupted Wagstaff's closing arguments today.

Judge Chabbria tells the jury Wagstaff "placed blame" on two Monsanto experts for using a chart that Monsanto has used in its opening and closing arguments but which the experts were never shown. Wagstaff clarifies and wraps up.

Wagstaff only used half of her 22 minutes for rebuttal, which makes me think she might have ended it short to avoid further interruptions by the judge or objections from Monsanto.

With that, the jury has retired and is deliberating. It's unclear how long they'll deliberate today.

Judge Chhabria says if the jury doesn't reach a verdict by noon tomorrow, openings in the next phase of trial will be kicked to Thursday.

The jury is gone for the day. No verdict yet. I’ll be back here tomorrow morning on verdict watch.

I'm outside of Judge Chhabria's courtroom on verdict watch. Usually it's pretty quiet outside of courtrooms during deliberations, but there are a number of folks waiting in the hall for the verdict to come down as well.

Just got notice the jury left for the day. No verdict in Hardeman v. Monsanto yet. The courtroom's dark tomorrow, so we'll all be back here Friday morning.

Today I covered pre-trial hearings in the next trial over claims Monsanto's Roundup causes cancer. Openings might begin a day earlier than expected on March 27. The judge also rejected Monsanto's bid to split the couples' case into 2 trials. bit.ly/2u6QjVZ

I’m back outside Judge Chhabria’s courtroom waiting for a verdict in Hardeman v. Monsanto this morning. All quiet so far.

No word from the jury this morning. But now that the noon hour is upon us, if the jury comes down in favor of the plaintiff Ed Hardeman today, opening arguments in the second trial to determine damages and other claims won't begin until Monday.

There will be no verdict today, according to the court PR person. They'll deliberate until 3:30 p.m. today though.

This is a little confusing, but this is what the court's press person is saying.

From the courthouse press person.

The jury might not have a verdict today, but they have a question.

I left the courthouse already so I'll have to defer to other reporters (if any are still there) for live updates. I'll post it once it's been filed in Pacer.

Morning! I'm in Judge Chhabria's courtroom. The six-member jury deciding whether Monsanto's Roundup caused Ed Hardeman's cancer is currently listening to Hardeman's testimony read back to them before going back to deliberating. Shouldn't take too long.

The court reporter finished reading back Hardeman's testimony, and the jury went back to deliberating. Who thinks we'll get a verdict today?

I'm getting a few questions about why the jury would want to hear Hardeman's testimony. They seemed to be writing a lot down when he was talking about how much Roundup he used, so they could be focusing on his exposure levels. But that's just a guess.

A couple of folks waiting outside the courtroom have said the jury's gone for the day, but I dunno where they're getting that info.

Ok, it's official. The court press person says the jury is gone for the day. They'll be back deliberating tomorrow morning at 8 a.m.

We've got a verdict, according to the court press person.

The court is convening. Standby for updates...

After deliberating for a week, a unanimous federal jury found Monsanto's Roundup was a substantial cause of a man's cancer. There will be a second trial to determine damages and other claims. Full story: bit.ly/2OgTxiT

I'm back in Judge Chhabria's courtroom. Monsanto's counsel is trying to keep certain financial stats out of the next trial - like the fact that Bayer paid $63 billion for Monsanto last year and that Monsanto paid an ex-CEO $32 million. The judge is skeptical.

The judge says he'll hold off on deciding whether to allow in Monsanto's financial stats from 2017 and 2018. But he says he doesn't understand how the stats aren't probative to the outrageousness of Monsanto's conduct.

The jury is back in the courtroom and openings of phase 2 are kicking off. The judge reminds the jury the "topic" of phase 2, is whether Monsanto is liable for Ed Hardeman's cancer and if it is, how much it owes.

Aimee Wagstaff begins Hardeman's openings by criticizing Monsanto for failing to do adequate longterm tests on the safety of Roundup. A Monsanto employee said in 2003 that they couldn't say Roundup isn't carcinogenic, because they hadn't done the necessary testing, Wagstaff says.

Wagstaff says Monsanto's Donna Farmer ghost wrote multiple papers that concluded there was not a link between Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate, and cancer.

Wagstaff says Farmer also tried to keep one study out of the public eye by editing the abstract so it wasn't easily searchable. The study concluded cancer risk doubles with high levels of glyphosate exposure, she says.

Wagstaff says they're asking for $200,000 in economic damages, but she didn't put numbers out there for noneconomic damages or punitive damages.

Wagstaff wraps Hardeman's opening statement, noting that Bayer bought Monsanto last year for $63 billion and it has a net worth of $7.8 billion. It also had $2.4 billion cash-on-hand last summer, she says.

Monsanto's counsel is up, arguing that Roundup has been repeatedly been approved by regulators since it entered the market in 1975 and it is the "most studied herbicide in the world." He says the company is not trying to "hide behind the EPA" and it's done decades of testing.

Monsanto's attorney tried to show the jury a long list of studies Monsanto has purportedly conducted on Roundup since the 1970s. Hardeman's attorney interrupted him and requested a sidebar.

The judge said he's overruling the objection but reminded the jury the attorney's opening statement is not evidence. Monsanto's counsel is going back through the list of studies that Monsanto conducted and provided to the EPA.

Monsanto's counsel argues that between 1986 and 2012 the EPA and international regulators didn't say Roundup's active ingredient was carcinogenic.

Monsanto's attorney argues that Hardeman's attorney took Farmer's comment out of context. He tells the jury: "Don’t let cherry-picked statements out of documents be used at trial. Demand that full context be given."

Monsanto's counsel wraps openings telling the jury "this is not a popularity contest" and it's not about whether you love Monsanto. He says it's about whether Monsanto acted responsibly in light of the science around the world. It did act responsibly, he says.

Hardeman's first witness is Monsanto's former toxicologist Mark Martens. His deposition is an hour and eight minutes long and it's being played via video. I'm gonna take a Twitter break. I'll update if something big comes up.

Ed Hardeman's attorneys urged a jury to find Monsanto liable for failing to warn about Roundup's cancer risks and award punitives today. The attorneys noted that the Bayer subsidiary has $2.4 billion in cash on hand. bit.ly/2HL2e3G

I'm back in Judge Chhabria's courtroom covering day 2 of the trial to determine liability and damages in Hardeman v. Monsanto. The jury is watching Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer's videoed testimony.

Monsanto toxicologist, Donna Farmer, has repeatedly denied that she and Monsanto's chief of regulatory science, William Heydens, ghost wrote multiple academic articles from 1999 to 2012 that concluded high exposure to Roundup's active ingredient doesn't pose a cancer risk.

Monsanto toxicologist, Donna Farmer, says repeatedly that what she wrote in the scientific papers didn't "rise to the level of being an author" and her contributions were minor & edits. Hardeman's atty points out she was commended for her "significant" contribution to the papers.

Hardeman's atty points out that Monsanto's Donna Farmer added a sentence in a paper that said Roundup's active ingredient is not carcinogenic. She responds,"I offered them as suggested edits for them to include or not include...They were only suggested edits. They were minor."

Hardeman's attorney asks Monsanto's Farmer what she would do if she discovered her student submitted a paper with a sentence written by another person w/o crediting the source. Farmer says that's not what happened in here, repeating that her sentences were merely suggested edits.

Monsanto's counsel is questioning Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer on her use of Roundup. She says she doesn't think it causes cancer and she has regularly used Roundup at home for the past 25 years without extra protective equipment.

Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer says Monsanto has its own labs and hired external, accredited labs to study Roundup and its safety.

Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer is explaining animal tests that were conducted by Monsanto. She says the researchers gave mice 10,000 to 1 million times more Roundup than what an individual would be exposed to during a lifetime. She says they found it's not genotoxic.

Correction: These tests were of Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate and not the Roundup mixture, which includes glyphosate and surfactants.

Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer says Monsanto didn't do longterm 2-year animal studies to test the Roundup formulated product, because they didn't find that glyphosate was genotoxic and feeding mice Roundup would give mice digestive problems due to the surfactants.

Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer says they looked at studies done by other companies that sold glyphosate-based products and those results concluded it isn't genotoxic or carcinogenic. "The data was very consistent," she says.

Farmer says Monsanto redid a study where they injected, as opposed to feed, glyphosate to rats. She says they found "gunk" sitting on kidneys and livers that had been damaged, but they concluded the damage wasn't because glyphosate was genotoxic.

Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer wraps her testimony vouching for the company's research into the safety of Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate. "I’m very proud of what we have done because I believe it was high quality and sound science," she says.

Hardeman's attorneys read multiple admissions into the record, including that Monsanto admits it never did a longterm carcinogenic study of its products. They then called to the stand expert oncologist, Dr. Chadi Nabhan. He's currently giving the jury his credentials.

Nabhan is going into the details of Hardeman's cancer and the side effects of his treatment, like vomiting, hair loss, nausea and chronic fatigue. "There is no chemotherapy that is easy and this chemotherapy is no walk in the park," he says.

The parties wrapped with Nabhan without Monsanto's counsel questioning him and jury is on lunch until 1 p.m. Plaintiff Ed Hardeman is expected to take the stand after lunch.

We're back and plaintiff Ed Hardeman is taking the stand.

Hardeman says he never thought he could get cancer from Monsanto's Roundup and he thought it was safe to use, because "you could buy it right off the shelf of the local hardware store."

Hardeman says repeatedly that he wouldn't have used Roundup if he knew that Roundup could cause cancer or if there was a label on Roundup warning it could cause cancer. "I wouldn’t have used it. I wouldn’t have bought it. I’d let the weeds grow," he says.

Hardeman says after chemotherapy he started vomiting violently and couldn't be in moving vehicles or watch television without getting nauseous. He says he stopped eating and his whole body was "puffed up" and swollen.

Hardeman says his hair started falling out in chunks and he had severe bone pain that radiated up through his body after cancer treatment. The pain was so bad that he had to sleep upright in a chair, he says.

Hardeman, who served in the Army in the early '70s, says he adopted a military mindset to fighting cancer. He says he considered it his enemy. He would email his doctors about the multiple side effects of his chemotherapy, trying to figure out how best to manage it.

Hardeman says when he started using Roundup in 1986 he thought it was safe. He says he would not have used it if he had known in 1986 that there were no valid studies to support the safety of Roundup. Hardeman's counsel wrapped examination and Monsanto's counsel is up.

Monsanto's counsel is trying to get Hardeman to concede that at most he only read the Roundup label twice, once when he started using it in 1986 and maybe a 2nd time in 1988. Hardeman says he read it and "glanced" at it multiple times, but doesn't know the exact years or numbers.

Monsanto's counsel is impeaching Hardeman, reading Hardeman's prior testimony back to him.

Monsanto's counsel asked Hardeman if he ever used bug or wasp spray, motor oil, paint or gasoline and whether he recalls seeing cancer warnings. Hardeman says he doesn't know or recall if he used the bug sprays or if any of the bottles had cancer warnings.

Hardeman's points out that Monsanto attorneys deposed him for 8 hrs in a small, windowless hotel room. Hardeman: "I was exhausted by it, they asked questions over and over again like they wanted different answers ... and my wife was up next." Monsanto asked for a sidebar.

The judge sustained Monsanto's objection and struck Hardeman's comments about the manner in which the deposition was conducted.

Hardeman reiterates that he "absolutely" read the label before he used Roundup and would not have used it if it had a cancer warning. With that, the parties are finished with questioning Hardeman.

Hardeman's wife, Mary Hardeman, is on the stand giving emotional testimony about when they discovered Hardeman had cancer. She says when they got the call, it was awful: "It made me realize, he's the love of my life and I could lose him."

"Ed has always been the strong person for me, and I felt then that it was a role reversal, I could be strong for him," Hardeman's wife says.

Mary says they were both scared during the first chemotherapy session and after treatment, her husband changed. She says he was bloated, nauseous and she could tell he was scared.

"I remember him literally screaming one night...," Mary says about her husband's cancer treatment. "He said it was like an electric shock went up his body, I tried to get him into bed, but he couldn’t lie down."

"His patience wasn’t there and usually he’s a very patient persona," Mary says of her husband. "His patience went out the window, and that’s when I had to start getting some patience of my own."

Ed Hardeman's wife Mary says cancer is pretty tenacious and the anxiety about it coming back will never go away. Since her husband was diagnosed, he's changed and their relationship has changed, she says. "I wish to god that he never got that damn disease," she says.

The parties finished with Mary without Monsanto’s counsel questioning her. The judge tells the jury they’re done for the day and he expects closings will be Tuesday.

Judge Chhabria says he’ll give the plaintiff’s counsel one more hour. They want two hours; he says he’s “very doubtful” he agree to another hour.