[ad_1]
(Bloomberg) – The lawyer most responsible for reaching a $ 289 million verdict against Bayer AG may well erase it.
Brent Wisner was the trial's chief attorney who, in August, convinced a jury that Monsanto Co.'s Roundup weed killer had caused his client's cancer. His compelling arguments and juxtaposition of evidence led to a blockbuster verdict that frightened investors who were considering thousands of similar US lawsuits pending against Monsanto, which Bayer had acquired in June.
But Wisner's closing arguments at the trial upset the judge who handled the case so deeply that she was considering dismissing the verdict and ordering a new trial. The lawyer told the jury that Monsanto executives in the corporate boardroom "were waiting for the phone to ring" and that "behind them is a champagne ball on the ice," according to a court record. He said that "if the damage is not big enough, the champagne corks will collapse".
At a hearing Wednesday, Judge Suzanne Ramos Bolanos of San Francisco cited a number of reasons why she is inclined to cancel or sever the verdict. But she singled out the champagne commentary, wondering if Wisner's passionate rhetoric was beyond the line. Wisner also told the jurors that their decision could "change the world" and that they could become "part of the story". Bolanos said the comments could prove "sufficiently prejudicial" to warrant a retrial.
Next lawsuit for Bayer Crop-Chemical claims: QuickTake
The judge reminded Wisner, who joined the hearing by telephone, that she took it apart at the close of the proceedings and warned her of her comments about the champagne. "Before the jury, you ignored my order and repeated the same reprehensible statement," she said.
Bolanos was incredulous when Wisner seemed to suggest that he was unaware of the objection to the particular champagne reference.
Robin McCall, spokesman for the law firm Wisner, said the organization declined to comment. Michael Baum, one of Wisner's partners, said Bolanos' concerns "are not addressed" because, by law, the jury is "entitled to deference."
Last year, a federal judge in San Francisco, charged with hundreds of Roundup lawsuits against Monsanto, threatened to remove Wisner or his firm from mass litigation because the lawyer had made the headlines by publishing e-mails indicating that his firm had manipulated the public opinion on Roundup's health. risks.
"PR Man"
Wisner "did not focus on the legal profession, but on the public relationship," US judge Vince Chhabria said at a hearing. "He was more focused on publishing these documents and on their quick release than on his status as a lawyer."
Monsanto's lawyer, George Lombardi, told Bolanos that the champagne commentary "made fun of the judge" to the judge. "Think about the image that creates," he said. "We opposed it, it was not factual. To punish Monsanto for having a board member is to punish Monsanto for being a big company. "
At the end of the hearing, Ms. Bolanos had stated that she was considering various options, including the reversal of punitive damages of $ 250 million, the reduction in compensatory damages of $ 33 million. $ 9 million and the organization of a new trial. Bayer's US stocks, based in Leverkusen, Germany, jumped 6.3% on Wednesday to close at $ 79.50 in New York.
The judge is currently reviewing the company's arguments that there is no basis for the jury to conclude that Monsanto is responsible for the plaintiff Lee Johnson's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma based on his exposure to the key ingredient in Roundup glyphosate.
Lombardi said the medical evidence at trial was "legally insufficient" to prove that Roundup exposure had caused Johnson's disease. He argued that the diagnosis provided by the applicant's medical expert was "extraordinarily simplistic and misleading".
Michael Miller, Johnson's attorney, told Bolanos that there was "no panoply of evidence" that the "well-educated, very attentive, and taking notes" jury had not followed the judge's instructions.
While Miller acknowledged that the plaintiff might have lost if the case was judged by Bolanos, he added that no error justified "the annulment of the verdict of a dying man".
The case is the case Dewayne Johnson c. Monsanto Co., CGC-16-550128, California Superior Court, San Francisco County (San Francisco).
To contact the reporter about this story: Joel Rosenblatt in San Francisco at [email protected]
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Elizabeth Wollman at [email protected], Peter Blumberg
For more articles like this, go to bloomberg.com
© 2018 Bloomberg L.P.
Source link
