Court Establishes Deadline for Paraquat Lawsuit Plaintiffs To Issue Subpoenas for Evidence of Use, Exposure

The U.S. District Judge presiding over all Paraquat Parkinson’s disease lawsuits indicates that hundreds of cases could be dismissed without prejudice next month, if plaintiffs fail to issue subpoenas for records that may confirm they were exposed to the weed killer.

There are currently about 6,000 product liability lawsuits being pursued against Syngenta and Chevron in the federal court system, each raising similar allegations that exposure to Paraquat caused Parkinson’s disease or other neurological disorders.

Plaintiffs maintain that the manufacturers knew or should have known about the link between Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease for decades, but failed to provide adequate warnings for users and the public at large.

While most of the claims have been brought by agricultural workers who can establish that they regularly handled, mixed or sprayed Paraquat, concerns have been raised that some of the cases involve second-hand exposure or “implausible theories of proof,” where plaintiffs are unable to establish that they were actually exposed to the toxic herbicide.

Given common questions of fact and law raised in complaints brought throughout the federal court system, the Paraquat lawsuits have been centralized before U.S. District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel in the Southern District of Illinois since June 2021, as part of a federal MDL, or multidistrict litigation.

To address concerns that some cases in the MDL would not have been filed as stand-alone actions, the Court issued a case management order (PDF) in February 2024, which called on plaintiffs who had yet to show evidence of Paraquat exposure, to subpoena third parties to obtain necessary records to establish that they used or came into contact with the weedkiller.

In September, the manufacturers identified 586 Paraquat lawsuits where plaintiffs have yet to turn over those documents or issue subpoenas to obtain the records, calling for the Court to issue an order requiring non-compliant Plaintiffs to “show cause” why they failed to comply with the prior court order. They recommended that any plaintiff who fails to cure the issue should have their lawsuit dismissed with prejudice, which would prevent them from ever pursuing the claim in the future.

In response to the motion, plaintiffs argued that many of the cases flagged by the manufacturers were filed after the February 2024 order, indicating that they should not be subject to the same deadlines.

On October 28, Judge Rosenstengel did issue such a court order (PDF), confirming that the requirement to subpoena third party records applies to every case in the MDL, regardless of when they were filed.

“The Court takes this opportunity to clarify CMO 21’s scope: every Plaintiff in this MDL is subject to the requirements of CMO 21, regardless of when their case was filed,” the order states. “This means that all cases filed since February 26, 2024 (when the Court issued CMO 21), and all cases filed in the future, must abide by CMO 21’s requirements.”

Judge Rosenstengel gave the non-compliant parties 21 days to issue the necessary subpoenas, and called for Defendants to file a supplemental motion on November 27, identifying those parties that were still non-compliant. However, the Court indicated that those plaintiffs would be subject to dismissal without prejudice, meaning they may be able to refile their lawsuits in the future if they obtain the necessary documents.

The order calls for plaintiffs to file a subpoena to third-party record holders within 60 days of filing their complaint. Those third parties will have 21 days to respond with the requested documents, and those responsive documents should be submitted to the court within 10 days of receipt.

Paraquat Bellwether Lawsuit Status

While Judge Rosenstengel continues to promote efforts to weed out claims that involve questionable theories of liability, or insufficient evidence to establish plaintiffs were exposed to Paraquat, the Court is continuing with plans to prepare a group of “bellwether” cases for early trial dates.

To help the parties evaluate how juries may respond to certain evidence and testimony that will be repeated throughout the litigation, a small group of Paraquat lawsuits were prepared for trial over the last year. However, Judge Rosenstengel dismissed those cases in April, after excluding the plaintiffs’ designated expert witnesses from testifying at trial, leaving those claimants without any means to establish that their Parkinson’s disease diagnosis was caused by Paraquat.

Following the dismissal of the first batch of proposed Paraquat bellwether cases, Judge Rosenstengel expressed the Court’s intention to “expeditiously identify a new set of trial cases and set a tight schedule for limited discovery and trial,” to determine whether other experts can offer reliable testimony establishing causation.

In August, the parties and Court selected 10 new potential Paraquat bellwether cases. It is believed these lawsuits rely on different expert witness testimony than the previously dismissed claims, utilizing different methods to establish the link between Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease.

Shortly after that order was issued, at least two plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims. In response, Judge Rosenstengel issued an order (PDF) on October 31, 2024, identifying two additional claims to take their place, indicating that they will be subject to the same Paraquat lawsuit deadlines previously established.

It is unclear at this time when the first Paraquat lawsuits will go to trial. While the outcomes will not have any binding impact on other plaintiffs pursuing claims, they may impact the amount Syngenta and Chevron need to pay in Paraquat Parkinson’s disease settlements in the future, to avoid thousands of individual claims being remanded for trial in courts throughout the U.S.