City of Seattle v. Monsanto Company et al

Filing 506

ORDER: Oral argument is set for 11/16/2022, at 1:00 p.m. before Hon. Michelle L. Peterson on both Defendants' Motion (dkt. # 326 ) and Plaintiffs Motion (dkt. # 343 ). The parties are each authorized to submit 20-pages of supplemental briefin g, by close of business on 11/10/2022. The Clerk is directed to RE-NOTE the parties' pending Daubert Motions and Motions to Strike (dkt. ## 274 , 276 , 278 , 280 , 282 , 284 , 286 , 288 , 290 , 292 , 297 , 298 , 300 , 302 , 304 , 306 , 308 , 310 , 312 , 314 , 316 , 318 , 320 ) for the Court's consideration on 11/25/2022. Signed by Hon. Michelle L. Peterson. (SR)

Case 2:16-cv-00107-RAJ-MLP Document 506 Filed 10/20/22 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

CITY OF SEATTLE,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

Case No. C16-107-RAJ-MLP
ORDER

v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

This matter comes before the Court on the Honorable Richard A. Jones’s reference of: (1)
two issues raised in Defendants Monsanto Company, Solutia Inc., and Pharmacia Corporation’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (“Defendants’ Motion”) (dkt. # 326); and (2) Plaintiff City of
Seattle’s “Motion to Strike Defendants’ Amendments to Their Affirmative Defenses 10, 15, 18,
21, and 82” (“Plaintiff’s Motion”) (dkt. # 343). Based on Judge Jones’s reference of the parties’
Motions to this Court, the Court hereby ORDERS the following:
(1)

Oral argument is set for November 16, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. on both Defendants’

Motion (dkt. # 326) and Plaintiff’s Motion (dkt. # 343). The parties are each authorized to submit
20-pages of supplemental briefing, by close of business on November 10, 2022, on the issues
identified in Judge Jones’s reference of Defendants’ Motion, and as raised in Plaintiff’s Motion,
with specific consideration of:

25
ORDER - 1

Case 2:16-cv-00107-RAJ-MLP Document 506 Filed 10/20/22 Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6

(a) the effect of the State of Washington’s June 2020 settlement agreement with
Defendants in light of the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik’s prior ruling that
Plaintiff’s public nuisance claim was brought for the benefit of the State— based
on authority delegated from “the [State’s] duty to hold all navigable waters within
the state in trust for the public”— and determination that Plaintiff’s efforts to
remediate its waterways of pollution is an act “for the public good” undertaken in
its sovereign capacity (see dkt. # 60 at 8-9)
(b) whether this Court can revisit Judge Lasnik’s prior rulings or if this Court is
bound to those determinations in light of law of the case doctrine and the
previously addressed statute of limitations issue concerning Plaintiff’s public
nuisance claim;

7
8

(c) under Washington law, whether a municipality functions as an “agency” of the
State, and whether the State’s settlement agreement otherwise contemplated the
release of claims by all of the State’s municipalities as “agencies” of the State;

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

(d) the distinction between the City of Seattle’s public nuisance action against
Defendants and the named class-action plaintiffs City of Tacoma and City of
Spokane in Defendants’ pending class-action settlement agreement (dkt. # 344-5),
in regard to whether the State’s settlement agreement would otherwise release the
City of Tacoma and City of Spokane’s claims absent the pending class-action
settlement;
(e) the effect of the State’s settlement agreement on all of the Washington
municipalities identified as initial settlement class members in Defendants’
pending class-action settlement agreement (see dkt. # 344-5, Ex. A) and whether
the State’s settlement agreement would also release those municipalities’ claims
absent the pending class-action settlement; and

17

(f) whether the acquiescence exception, and/or waiver, applies to Defendants’ res
judicata defense given Defendants’ litigation of the City of Seattle and the State
of Washington’s claims in dual proceedings and separate forums.

18

(2)

Based on Judge Jones’s reference of the issues contained in Defendants’ Motion,

19

and reference of Plaintiff’s Motion, the Clerk is directed to RE-NOTE the parties’ pending

20

Daubert Motions and Motions to Strike (dkt. ## 274, 276, 278, 280, 282, 284, 286, 288, 290,

21

292, 297, 298, 300, 302, 304, 306, 308, 310, 312, 314, 316, 318, 320) for the Court’s

22

consideration on November 25, 2022.

23

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to the parties and to Judge Jones.

24
25
ORDER - 2

Case 2:16-cv-00107-RAJ-MLP Document 506 Filed 10/20/22 Page 3 of 3

1

Dated this 20th day of October, 2022.

2

A

3

MICHELLE L. PETERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORDER - 3