2018 11:21 am - politico...washington, dc /s/ gregory s. chernack gregory s. chernack hollingsworth...

Monsanto"

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------------------------- X

AVAAZ FOUNDATION, : Index No. 151653/2018

: NYSCEF

Petitioner, :

: HON. SHLOMO S. HAGLER-against- : Part 17

:

MONSANTO COMPANY, :

:

Respondent. :

----------------------------------------------------------- X

AFFIRMATION OF GREGORY S. CHERNACK

GREGORY S. CHERNACK, an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of

the State of New York, affirms the following to be true under penalties of perjury:

1. I am a partner in the firm Hollingsworth LLP, counsel for Respondent Monsanto

Company ("Monsanto").("

I submit this affirmation in support of Monsanto's Request for

Advance Permission to File Sur-Reply Pursuant to Local Rule 14(c).

2. Annexed as Exhibit A is a copy of Email from Chris Portier, to Daniel Boese,

Media Campaigner (Nov. 3, 2017).

3. Annexed as Exhibit B is a copy of Email from Chris Portier, to Sarah Morrison,

Campaigner, Avaaz (July 11, 2017).

4. Annexed as Exhibit C is a copy of Email from Daniel Boese, Media Campaigner,

to Chris Portier (Nov. 30, 2017).

5. Annexed as Exhibit D is a copy of Email from Chris Portier, to Daniel Boese,

Media Campaigner (Dec. 1, 2017).

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/11/2018 11:21 AM INDEX NO. 151653/2018

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/11/2018

1 of 2

6. Annexed as Exhibit E is a copy of Email from Daniel Boese, Media Campaigner,

to Chris Portier (Oct. 20, 2017).

7. Annexed as Exhibit F is a copy of Email from Chris Portier, to Daniel Boese,

Media Campaigner (Oct. 20, 2017).

8. Annexed as Exhibit G is excerpts from Deposition of Christopher Portier, Ph.D.,

Vol. II at 530:1-532:6 (Apr. 17, 2018), Peterson v. Monsanto Co., No. 1622-CC01071 (Mo. Cir.

Ct. St. Louis City); Kane v. Monsanto Co., No. 1622-CC10172 (Mo. Cir. Ct. St. Louis City);

Neal v. Monsanto Co., No. 1722-CC10773 (Mo. Cir. Ct. St. Louis City).

Dated: June 11, 2018

Washington, DC /s/ Gregory S. Chernack

Gregory S. Chernack

HOLLINGSWORTH LLP

1350 I Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 898-5800 (phone)

(202) 682-1639 (fax)

Attorney for Respondent Monsanto Company



2 of 2

From: Chris PortierSubject: Re: Chris: Request to brief press next week in Brussel

Date: November 3, 2017 at 7:49 PMTo: Daniel Boese

Daniel,

Thank you for this invitation. I realize that with my being part of the US litigation, this is a risk for you. Regretfully, Icannot attend.

~ I could do something by Skype or some other electronic communication if that would help.

C.

On Nov 3, 2017, at 7:24 AM, Daniel Boese < wrote:

Dear Chris,

I wasn't able to reach you on the phone right now - so reaching out via email. We are looking into holding a press

briefing next Wednesday in Brussels to have a couple of voices with a science background brief reporters onglyphosate.

Would you consider being present? I think in short, that would be a good way to counter a lot of the attacks comingat you and at IARC. Our team would be there to support you and make sure the message gets out.

Simultaneously, we have briefed reporters on the Daubert briefing and the expert submission (including yours). Thatis a lot of very solid evidence and it should be defended as that.

I look forward to hearing from you,

BestDaniel__Daniel BoeseMedia Cam ai ner

Confidential I Subject to Protective Order Case No. 1622-CC10172



you'

Email:Skype:

From: Chris PortierSubject: Re: Connecting with scientists on behalf of the Stop Glyphosate Coalition

Date: July 11, 2017 at 8:57 PMTo: Sarah Morrison

I'm sorry, but I do not.

On Jul 10, 2017, at 2:52 AM, Sarah Morrison wrote:

Hi Chris,

Just a quick follow-up: Is there any chance you have Hans Kromhaut's mobile number? He seems to be

out of the office and I'd love to reach him directly.

Thanks in advance,

Sarah

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:10 PM, Chris Portier > wrote:Sarah,

I am in the US until July 20 so it might be difficult to schedule. Francesco Forastiere and Hans Kromhaut werewith me in Brussels and are CC'd on this email, as is Peter Klausing who knows the recent letters the best. I will

say that the EFSA have not responded to my latest criticism.

C.

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 6, 2017, at 05:36, Sarah Morrison wrote:

Dear Dr Portier,

I am a Global Campaigner working at Avaaz. I work alongside Lisa Vickers and Daniel Boese, who I believeyou have already been in touch with (alongside other members of the coalition). As you'll know, we are workingto ban glyphosate-based herbicides and set EU-wide mandatory reduction targets for pesticide use, with a viewto achieving a pesticide-free future.

On 19 July the relevant standing committee will be meeting to discuss the Commission's proposal to renew thelicence for glyphosate. At that time the ECI Stop Glyphosate coalition is organising an action to keep thepressure turned up and keep the story in the media. We are looking for scientists to participate in the action.

I was wondering whether you, or any scientists you work with or know, would be interested in joining us for theevent --or speaking to media ahead of/during/or around this time? I know you bought two scientists with you tothe Commission last year and was wondering whether they might be interested in working with us around thispivotal moment?

Please do let me know - I would be happy to provide more details.

Thanks in advance,

Sarah

__

Campaigner, Avaaz

b I

__

Campaigner, Avaaz

Confidential / Subject to Protective Order Case No. 1622-CC10172



Monsanto"

From: Daniel BoeseSubject: Re: Taking a breat on g yp osate - an next steps on the science

Date: November 30, 2017 at 1:55 PMTo: Chris Portier

Thank you, I will have a German translation and tge addresses to send it to at 7pm

Chris Portier i >>schrieb am Do. 30. Nov. 2017 um 11:53:How does a person comment on something like this? Do I send a letter to the editor? Would it need to be inGerman?

My criticism of this article would be as follows:

Grossarth has overly simplified the arguments regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate. While the IARC doesstand alone as the only agency to declare glyphosate a probable human carcinogen, it is also the only forum whereindependent scientists have objectively reviewed the scientific evidence on this issue and have offered anindependent assessment free of commercial or political pressure. Also, as noted in the letter by my colleagues andI to the EC Health Commissioner, the arguments used by EFSA to disregard the positive cancer data is

scientifically unsound. The same holds true for their evaluations of other health effects from glyphosate such asendocrine disruption. While the ecological impacts of glyphosate are clearly important, so are the potential humanhealth effects. If the process used by the EU to evaluate data on the health effects of pesticides remains

scientifically flawed, then even when science finds answers regarding the health impacts of glyphosateformulations, the evaluations of these new data will be flawed and again lead to a failure to identify harmful effectsin humans.

Now is the time for independent scientists to closely examine the practices of pesticide regulators worldwide andcorrect the numerous flaws in the way they evaluate scientific evidence.

On Nov 29, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Daniel Boese wrote:

Dear Chris,

here is the translation.

Jan Grossarth is a solid science reporter, he hasn't crossed over to the dark side like Kate Kelland. But he stillhasn't gotten to the bottom of the cancer-science and clearly is letting himself be confused by the arguments from

Industry and certain German ministries.

The key argument to drive back against with a letter to the editor is the false equivalence between IARCand agencies like ECHA, and EFSA. He needs to be reminded is the only independent agency that does not

rely on science paid for and summarized and analyzed by industry. On the second argument on the plagiarizedchapters in the risk assessment you can also point out that the chapter on carcinogenicity may only be a fractionof the whole report ( i think 80 pages of 1600) - but obviously it absolutely central to the decision at hand and notan irrelevant subsection.

Reasonable glyphosate extensionBY JAN GROSSARTH - UPDATED ON 27.11.2017-18: 02

Glyphosate is allowed to be used in the EU for the next five years. That seems reasonable. Because

many question marks remain with the arguments of opponents of glyphosate.

On the EU farmland, farmers are allowed to use the weed killer glyphosate to eliminate everything that isnot supposed to be green by 2022 - to sow what they want to grow: wheat, barley, corn. As a result, whilethe plow is spared roots and worms, consumers are not spared the chemical residue in their bread.

The decision of the EU states seems reasonable at the moment, however, because there question marksbehind the arguments of the campaign leaders that stand for a ban: Firstly, audit authorities around theworld only see a very minimal risk of cancer - a WHO authority, that attested the cancer risk, standsalone. Second, allegations that the state had adopted studies from Monsanto proved to be grosslyexaggerated (it was a matter of a few subsections introduced accordingly). Third, anti-Americanresentment resonated in campaigns; the motives of some actors therefore seem doubtful ("Ecocide("

byMonsanto").

Now is the time for science to find answers to questions that are actually open, such as the effect ofdifferent glyphosate preparations such as Roundup, the interaction of different chemicals or the effectson specific risk groups such as children. Environmental activists may wonder if the harmful effects ofglyphosate on landscape and biodiversity (insects) would not be the more relevant topic.




http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/kommentar-spritzzeit-verlaengerung-15313295.html -15313295.html

__Daniel BoeseMedia Cam ai ner

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Daniel Boese > wrote:HI Chris,

I would suggest Monday, December 11th at 10 AM for a call - would that work?

And on a more current note: Would you be willing to write a short letter to the editor of FAZ, responding totheir Editorial from today? It creates a false-equivalence between IARC on the one side and all risk agencieslike EFSA on the other. You essentially need to call out the false equivalence by reminding editors that IARC isthe only agency that does not rely on industry data and is truly independent.

That is a key argument you, we and many others will have to make over the coming months/years and to keeprepeating. It worked on climate science, but it took a long time to make it stick.

I will send a translation of the editorial later today.

BestDaniel

__Daniel BoeseMedia Cam aiai ner

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Chris Portier | > wrote:Yes, I would be available. Sounds very interesting.

C.

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 28, 2017, at 16:20, Daniel Boese > wrote:

Dear Chris,

two things: I wanted to thank you for your work on glyphosate! And I wanted to ask if we can set up a callin December on the next steps in the scientific debate, especially on epidemiology. We now have countrieslike Italy and France, Belgium and Sweden open to setting up new studies to examine hazard and risk.

Would you be available in the week of December 13th?

BestDaniel__Daniel BoeseMedia Cam ai ner

____Daniel BoeseMedia Cam i er

No.ConfidentialConfidential I/ SubjectSubject toto ProtectiveProtective OrderOrder CaseCase No. 1622-CC101721622-CC10172



From: Chris PortierSubject: Re: Letter to FAZ

Date: December 1, 2017 at 10:27 AMTo: Daniel Boese

Done.

On Dec 1, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Daniel Boese wrote:

German Translation

Herr Grossarth vereinfacht die Argumente bezüglich der Kanzerogenität von Glyphosat

übermäßig. Die Krebsforschungsorganisation der WHO, IARC, hat tatsächlich als einzige

Behörde Glyphosat als beim Menschen wahrscheinlich krebserregend eingestuft. IARC ist aber

ebenso das einzige Forum, in dem unabhängige Wissenschaftler objektiv die wissenschaftliche

Beweislage zu diesem Thema untersucht und dann cine unabhängige Bewertung, frei von

kommerziellen oder politischen Interessen, abgegeben haben.

Wie auch bereits in einem von mir und meinen Kollegen an den EU-Gesundheitskommissar

gerichteten Brief erwähnt, ist die von der EFSA verfolgte Argumentation, positive Krebsdaten

auszuschließen, wissenschaftlich unseriös. Dasselbe trifft auch auf die Evaluierungen der EFSA

zu anderen Gesundheitsauswirkungen von Glyphosat zu, wie z.B. den Störungen des

Hormonsystems, der endokrinen Disruption.

Natürlich sind die ökologischen Auswirkungen von Glyphosat wichtig -- ebenso jedoch auch die

möglichen Auswirkungen auf die Gesundheit der Menschen. Solange der Prozess, mit dem die

EU die Daten fur Gesundheitsauswirkungen von Pestiziden evaluiert, wissenschaftlich fehlerhaft

bleibt, werden auch die Evaluierungen neuer Daten wissenschaftlich fehlerhaft bleiben und erneut

zum Versagen bei der Identifikation gesundheitsschädlicher Auswirkungen beim Menschen

führen -- selbst wenn die Wissenschaft Antworten fur die gesundheitlichen Auswirkungen findet.

Jetzt ist der Moment, in dem unabhängige Wissenschaftler die Praktiken der Behörden, die

weltweit Pestizide regulieren, unter die Lupe nehmen sollten und die zahlreichen Mängel, wie die

wissenschaftliche Beweislage untersucht wird, korrigieren.

English Original:

Jan Grossarth has overly simplified the arguments regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.

While the IARC does stand alone as the only agency to declare glyphosate a probable human

carcinogen, it is also the only forum where independent scientists have objectively reviewed the

scientific evidence on this issue and have offered an independent assessment free of commercial

or political pressure. Also, as noted in the letter by my colleagues and I to the EC Health

Commissioner, the arguments used by EFSA to disregard the positive cancer data is scientificallyunsound. The same holds true for their evaluations of other health effects from glyphosate such

as endocrine disruption. While the ecological impacts of glyphosate are clearly important, so are

the potential human health effects. If the process used by the EU to evaluate data on the health

effects of pesticides remains scientifically flawed, then even when science finds answers

regarding the health impacts of glyphosate formulations, the evaluations of these new data will be

flawed and again lead to a failure to identify harmful effects in humans.

Now is the time for independent scientists to closely examine the practices of pesticide regulators

worldwide and correct the numerous flaws in the way they evaluate scientific evidence.




From: Chris PortierSubject: Re: Letter to FAZ

Date: December 1, 2017 at 11:40 AMTo: Daniel Boese

December 1 at 10 am is fine with me. It is on my calendar.

On Dec 1, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Daniel Boese wrote:

Dear Chris,

below is the translation to German - please send both German and En lish as a letter to the editor to these two

email adresses :

. And attach the letter to the EC you are referring to

. And add your impressive letterhead / signature with PhD, CV etc

Thank you very much!

BestDaniel

German Translation

Herr Grossarth vereinfacht die Argumente bezüglich der Kanzerogenität von Glyphosat

übermäßig. Die Krebsforschungsorganisation der WHO, IARC, hat tatsächlich als einzige

Behörde Glyphosat als beim Menschen wahrscheinlich krebserregend eingestuft. IARC ist aber

ebenso das einzige Forum, in dem unabhängige Wissenschaftler objektiv die wissenschaftliche

Beweislage zu diesem Thema untersucht und dann cine unabhängige Bewertung, frei von

kommerziellen oder politischen Interessen, abgegeben haben.

Wie auch bereits in einem von mir und meinen Kollegen an den EU-Gesundheitskommissar

gerichteten Brief erwähnt, ist die von der EFSA verfolgte Argumentation, positive Krebsdaten

auszuschließen, wissenschaftlich unseriös. Dasselbe trifft auch auf die Evaluierungen der EFSA

zu anderen Gesundheitsauswirkungen von Glyphosat zu, wie z.B. den Störungen des

Hormonsystems, der endokrinen Disruption.

Natürlich sind die ökologischen Auswirkungen von Glyphosat wichtig -- ebenso jedoch auch die

möglichen Auswirkungen auf die Gesundheit der Menschen. Solange der Prozess, mit dem die

EU die Daten fur Gesundheitsauswirkungen von Pestiziden evaluiert, wissenschaftlich fehlerhaft

bleibt, werden auch die Evaluierungen neuer Daten wissenschaftlich fehlerhaft bleiben und erneut

zum Versagen bei der Identifikation gesundheitsschädlicher Auswirkungen beim Menschen

führen -- selbst wenn die Wissenschaft Antworten fur die gesundheitlichen Auswirkungen findet.

Jetzt ist der Moment, in dem unabhängige Wissenschaftler die Praktiken der Behörden, die

weltweit Pestizide regulieren, unter die Lupe nehmen sollten und die zahlreichen Mängel, wie die

wissenschaftliche Beweislage untersucht wird, korrigieren.

English Original:

Jan Grossarth has overly simplified the arguments regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.

While the IARC does stand alone as the only agency to declare glyphosate a probable human

carcinogen, it is also the only forum where independent scientists have objectively reviewed the

scientific evidence on this issue and have offered an independent assessment free of commercial

or political pressure. Also, as noted in the letter by my colleagues and I to the EC Health

Commissioner, the arguments used by EFSA to disregard the positive cancer data is scientificallyunsound. The same holds true for their evaluations of other health effects from glyphosate such

as endocrine disruption. While the ecological impacts of glyphosate are clearly important, so are

the potential human health effects. If the process used by the EU to evaluate data on the health




ettects or pesticides remains scientifically awe, then even when science tinds answers

regarding the health impacts of glyphosate formulations, the evaluations of these new data will be

flawed and again lead to a failure to identify harmful effects in humans.

Now is the time for independent scientists to closely examine the practices of pesticide regulators

worldwide and correct the numerous flaws in the way they evaluate scientific evidence.

Daniel BoeseMedia Cam i ner




I'

From: Daniel BoeseSubject: Re: Media Contact or cancer expert

Date: October 20, 2017 at 2:07 PMTo: Chris Portier Julie Deruy

Dear Chris,

thank you for this! I am looping in my colleague Julie Deruy who will be working on this story next week with me.

We will reach out in case we have questions.

BestDaniel

Daniel BoeseMedia Ca ai ner

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Chris Portier > wrote:

Attachment available until Nov 19, 2017

I've also included my expert report for you to share with anyone you contact so they have background.

C.

Click to Download

Expert-Report-of-Chris-Portier-2.pdf

28.2 MB

On Oct 20, 2017, at 1:02 PM, Daniel Boese < wrote:

Dear Chris,

here is my contact again.

Please send me contact info for Ron Melnick and any other cancer expert willing to do media but not involvedwith glyphosate/Roundup at all. Thank you for your help!

This is the strongest story that came out of the Brussels trip of the cancer plaintiffs and their lawyers weorganized:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/business/monsanto-roundup-europe.html? r=0

BestDaniel

Daniel BoeseMedia Ca ai ner




c

From: Chris PortierSubject: Re: Media Contact for cancer expert

Date: October 20, 2017 at 2:26 PMTo: Daniel Boese

Other names

John Groopman, Johns Hopkins-

Be na d Stew rt, Un vers ty of New ou a es,

Camilla Svendsen, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Norway,

Franklin E. Mirer, City University of New York, USA,

Martin Van den Berg, Utrecht University, The Netherlands,

c.

On Oct 20, 2017, at 1:02 PM, Daniel Boese < wrote:

Dear Chris,

here is my contact again.

Please send me contact info for Ron Melnick and any other cancer expert willing to do media but not involved withglyphosate/Roundup at all. Thank you for your help!

This is the strongest story that came out of the Brussels trip of the cancer plaintiffs and their lawyers we organized:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/business/monsanto-roundup-europe.html? r=0

BestDaniel

Daniel BoeseMedia Cam ai ner




1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS

2 STATE OF MISSOURI

3 ------------------------x

4 TIMOTHY KANE, et al., :

5 Plaintiffs, : Case No.

6 v. : 1622-CC10172

7 MONSANTO COMPANY, :

8 Defendant. :

9 ------------------------x

10

11 DEPOSITION OF CHRISTOPHER PORTIER, Ph.D.

12 Tuesday, April 17th 2018

13 AT: 8.03 a.m.

14 Volume 2

15

16 Taken at:

17 Marriott Park Lane Hotel

18 140 Park Lane, Mayfair

19 London WlK 7AA

20 United Kingdom

21

22

23 Job ref: 184936

24 Pages: 385 - 600

25



Transcript of Christopher J. Portier, Ph.D., Volume 2

Conducted on April 17, 2018 389

1 Tuesday, April 17, 2018 07:51:30

2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Today's date is 08:01:14

3 April 17th 2018. We are back on the record. The 08:02:55

4 time is 8.03. 08:02:59

5 MR. KALAS: Just so everybody can 08:03:03

6 identify who is here again, I am John Kalas for 08:03:05

7 Hollingsworth LLP, representing Monsanto. 08:03:10

8 MR. HILMERT: James Hilmert from 08:03:14

9 Winston and Strawn for Monsanto. 08:03:16

10 MS. GREENWALD: Robin Greenwald for 08:03:22

11 the Plaintiffs. 08:03:32

12 EXAMINATION BY MR. KALAS (Continued) 08:03:32

13 Q. Dr. Portier, you understand you are 08:03:32

14 still under oath? 08:03:32

15 A. yes. 08:03:32

16 Q. Okay. Thanks for being back with 08:03:32

17 us today. I want to go back to exhibits 32 and 08:03:33

18 33, which are your slide deck from the Daubert 08:03:34

19 hearing in March 2018? 08:03:34

20 A. yes. 08:03:34

21 Q. And your rebuttal report. 08:03:38

22 yesterday, we had stopped at slide 08:03:42

23 31, so I would like to keep going and move to 08:03:44

24 slide 32. 08:03:49

25 A. Okay. 08:03:55

PLANET DEPOS

883.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.OOM





1 10:49:55

2 10:49:56

3 10:50:00

4 10:50:04

5 10:50:04

6 10:50:05

7 10:50:06

8 10:50:10

9 BY MR. KALAS: 10:50:11

10 Q. Okay, so let me ask the questions 10:50:12

11 that way so that it's clear? 10:50:15

12 A. Okay. 10:50:17

13 Q. Have you provided advice regarding 10:50:17

14 glyphosate or Roundup for -- strike that. 10:50:19

15 Have you provided advice regarding 10:50:22

16 the safety of glyphosate or Roundup to anyone 10:50:24

17 beyond the plaintiffs' attorneys for payment? 10:50:26

18 MS. . GREENWALD: Objection, form. 10:50:30

19 THE WITNESS: No. 10:50:31

20 BY MR. KALAS: 10:50:31

21 10:50:31

22 10:50:36

23 10:50:40

/24 MS. GREENWALD: Objection, form. 10:50:43

25 THE WITNESS: Yes.) 10:50:43

PLANET DEPOS

888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM





1 BY MR. KALAS: 10:50:44

2 Q. Who else? 10:50:44

3 A. ECHA at the behest of HEAL, so I 10:50:46

4 provided them with advice. Reporters who have 10:50:52

5 called and asked questions. Avantz, is that the 10:50:57

6 name of the organization? 10:51:07

7 Q. Avaaz, maybe? 10:51:09

8 A. Avaaz. They asked me to provide 10:51:10

9 them advice on what would clear up some of the 10:51:13

10 problems with this and they wanted to build a 10:51:16

11 conference around that, so I spoke with them about 10:51:19

12 that. And there might be others but... 10:51:23

13 Q. So, your answer about Avaaz could 10:51:30

14 be interpreted a lot of ways so I just want to 10:51:36

15 understand what you meant. You said that Avaaz 10:51:38

16 wanted to ask you what would clear up the problems 10:51:41

17 with this. What exactly do you mean by that? 10:51:44

18 A. It was a group, and I don't really 10:51:47

19 know which NGOs were involved, but what they were 10:51:48

20 interested in was getting together a scientific 10:51:52

21 workshop where the two, sort of, scientific 10:51:57

22 viewpoints would be expressed in the same room. 10:52:02

23 We looked into it but found that it was pretty 10:52:07

24 much impossible to pull it off. I asked ECHA if 10:52:12

25 they would be interested in participating in such 10:52:20

PLANET DEPOS

888.433.3767 WWWPLANPTDPPOS.OOM



you'

I'



1 a thing and they said no, and so re left with 10:52:22

2 -- and EFSA said no, so you are really left with, 10:52:29

3 then, a one-sided scientific conference, and so I 10:52:32

4 stopped giving them advice on it. 10:52:38

5 Q. Okay. Do you know who else Avaaz 10:52:39

6 invited to participate in the scientific 10:52:44

7 conference beyond ECHA and EFSA? 10:52:47

8 A. They didn't invite anyone. I think 10:52:49

9 they dropped the idea completely. 10:52:51

10 Q. And do you know who else they asked 10:52:53

11 -- strike that. Do you know if they asked anyone 10:52:56

12 else to consult regarding the format or membership 10:52:59

13 of this conference beyond you? 10:53:04

14 A. yes, there was Peter Clauser, 10:53:06

15 Clausen? 10:53:13

16 g. Peter Clausing? 10:53:14

17 A. Clausing. Peter Clausing. I'm 10:53:15

18 terrible with names. And I consulted with a guy 10:53:16

19 in Finland because I wanted him to talk with ECHA 10:53:20

20 and see if we could find an agreement there. I'm 10:53:27

21 sorry, I'll have to look that name up and give it 10:53:30

22 to you another time. I'm drawing a blank on it. 10:53:34

23 Q. Okay. And when were these 10:53:37

24 discussions with Avaaz? 10:53:39

25 A. Oh, I don't know. 10:53:45

PLANET DEPOS

888.433.3767 WWWPLANETDPPOS.OOM



don'



1 Q. It was after the IARC working group 10:53:46

2 came to its conclusion? 10:53:48

3 A. Oh yes, and before ECHA came to 10:53:49

4 theirs. That's the timing. It was probably six 10:53:52

5 months -- three to six months before ECA's 10:53:58

6 decision. 10:54:03

7 Q. Okay. I only have a few more 10:54:03

8 questions and they are a little disorganised so I 10:54:07

9 apologise if I skip around. If we can go back to 10:54:13

10 your rebuttal report, I have another question 10:54:16

11 about it. 10:54:21

12 A. Okay, assuming I can find it. 10:54:23

13 Q. I would like to look at your table 10:54:33

14 -- modified table 11 on page 35. 10:54:38

15 A. Okay. 10:54:50

16 Q. And there's something I don't 10:54:50

17 understand I'm hoping you can clear up? 10:54:52

18 A. Okay. 10:54:54

19 Q. On the malignant lymphoma data 10:54:54

20 here, you have an incidence of 0, 1, 2, 5; right. 10:54:58

21 A. That's what it says, yes. 10:55:03

22 Q. And the p-trend for that was 0.007, 10:55:04

23 right? 10:55:10

24 A. That is correct. 10:55:11

25 Q. And then, when you did your P hist 10:55:11

PLANET DEPOS

888.433.3767 WWW.PLANETDEPOS.OOM





1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER

2

3 I, Alan Bell (Accredited Court

4 Reporter, Member of the British Institute of

5 Verbatim Reporters) do hereby certify that

6 CHRISTOPHER PORTIER, Ph.D. was duly sworn, that I

7 took the Stenograph Notes of the foregoing statement

8 under oath and that the transcript thereof is a

9 true and accurate record transcribed to the best

10 of my skill and ability.

11 I further certify that I am neither

12 counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of

13 the parties to the action in which the deposition

14 was taken, and that I am not a relative or

15 employee of any attorney or counsel employed by

16 the parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise

17 interested in the outcome of the action.

18

19

20

22 Alan Bell

23

24

25

PLANET DEPOS

888.433.3767 1WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM



SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------------------------- X

AVAAZ FOUNDATION, : Index No. 151653/2018

: NYSCEF

Petitioner, :

: HON. SHLOMO S. HAGLER-against- : Part 17

:

MONSANTO COMPANY, : MONSANTO COMPANY'S

: REQUEST FOR ADVANCE

Respondent. : PERMISSION TO FILE

----------------------------------------------------------- XSUR-REPLY PURSUANT TOLOCAL RULE 14(c)

Pursuant to Local Rule 14(c), Respondent Monsanto Company requests advance

permission to file a sur-reply in further support of its Opposition to Avaaz Foundation's Petition

to Quash Subpoena, which was submitted to this Court on March 19, 2018 (Doc. No. 32). On

March 29, 2018, Petitioner filed its Reply Papers (Doc. Nos. 33-42) ("Petitioner's Reply

Papers").Papers"

Monsanto requests advance permission to file a sur-reply for the following reasons.

Avaaz argues in its Reply Papers that Avaaz's coordination withplaintiffs'

counsel to

undermine the European Union's review of glyphosate is irrelevant to the underlying litigation in

which the subpoena was issued to Avaaz, Peterson v. Monsanto Co., No. 1622-CC01071 (Mo.

Cir. Ct. St. Louis City). As Monsanto explained in its Opposition to Avaaz's Petition to Quash

Subpoena, these efforts are directly relevant to the Peterson case because plaintiffs are seeking to

rely upon the very regulatory decisions they seek to influence to support the causation argument

that Avaaz,plaintiffs'

counsel, andplaintiffs'

experts campaigned for. In effect, they are using

the EU regulatory process to develop evidence for the litigation.

After Avaaz filed its Reply Papers,plaintiffs'

counsel made on May 7, 2018, a

supplemental production of documents responsive to the notice of deposition of one ofplaintiffs'

retained experts, ChristopherPortier.1Portier. These documents further reveal the link between Avaaz

and those involved in the Peterson case andRoundup®Roundup litigation more generally and demonstrate

that those communications include not justplaintiffs'

counsel but also extend to the experts that

will testify on behalf of plaintiffs. These documents show that while Dr. Portier was working as

an expert witness for plaintiffs, he had extensive correspondence with Avaaz staff and that

Avaaz and Dr. Portier have coordinated public attacks on glyphosate in Europe to attempt to

deter the European Union from reauthorizing of glyphosate.

For example, in an email dated November 3, 2017, see Affirmation of Gregory S.

Chernack ("Chernack Aff."), Ex. A2, Daniel Boese, Media Campaigner at Avaaz, asked if Dr.

Portier would be present at a "press briefing next Wednesday in Brussels to have a couple of

voices with a science background brief reporters onglyphosate."

Mr. Boese also stated that

Avaaz had "briefed reporters on the Daubert briefing and the expert submission (including

yours)."Dr. Portier responded, "Thank you for this invitation. I realize that with my being part

of the US litigation, this is a risk foryou."

Chernack Aff., Ex. A. In other correspondence,

Avaaz asked Dr. Portier to write editorials in response to adverse articles and to speak on its

behalf to the media, all in order to influence the European Union's decision regarding

reauthorizing glyphosate's European license. See Chernack Aff., Exs. B-F.

Additionally, in his deposition taken on April 16-17, 2018 (which also occurred after

Petitioner's Reply Papers were filed), Dr. Portier testified that he provided advice to Avaaz and

also assisted in putting together "a scientificworkshop"

(though the workshop never occurred).

1The supplemental production was made in three pending Missouri state cases, Peterson; Kane

v. Monsanto Co., No. 1622-CC10172 (Mo. Cir. Ct. St. Louis City); and Neal v. Monsanto Co.,

No. 1722-CC10773 (Mo. Cir. Ct. St. Louis City).2While the attached documents were initially marked as confidential when produced,

plaintiffs'

counsel have since communicated to counsel for Monsanto that the documents can be publiclyfiled with this Court.

aT ~ ~r

See Chernack Aff., Ex. G, Deposition of Christopher Portier, Ph.D., Vol. II at 530:1-532:6 (Apr.

17, 2018), Peterson v. Monsanto Co., No. 1622-CC01071 (Mo. Cir. Ct. St. Louis City); Kane v.

Monsanto Co., No. 1622-CC10172 (Mo. Cir. Ct. St. Louis City); Neal v. Monsanto Co., No.

1722-CC10773 (Mo. Cir. Ct. St. Louis City).

This correspondence between Avaaz and Dr. Portier and his deposition testimony further

demonstrate that Avaaz and those involved in theRoundup®

litigation are engaged in a

coordinated attack on glyphosate in the EU that can be used by their experts in support of

causation opinions offered at trial.

Pursuant to Local Rule 14(c), Monsanto should be given advance permission to file a

Sur-Replymana.~~m~~g tow~ submitmaa~~w recently~mmm~w~g uncovered~m~ vm~m» new~m rv evidencemv~~m~mm tow~ thew~m Court~ ~ aaa.arto further support its

Opposition to Avaaz Foundation's Petition to Quash Subpoena.

Dated: S. Washington,C: DC

June 11, 2018 HOLLINGSWORTH LLP

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Gregory S. Chernack

Gregory S. Chernack, Esq.

1350 I Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 898-5800 (phone)

(202) 682-1639 (fax)

HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP

Daniel P. Jaffe, Esq.

60 East42nd42 Street, Suite 4600

New York, NY 10165

(212) 485-9805 (phone)

(314) 480-1505 (fax)

Attorneys for Respondent Monsanto Company

AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE

The foregoing document was e-filed on NYSCEF and all attorneys of record were served

by e-mail through NYSCEF on the date of such e-filing.

/s/ Gregory S. Chernack

2018 11:21 am - politico...washington, dc /s/ gregory s. chernack gregory s. chernack hollingsworth...

Documents