A Washington state judge has outlined a plan to consolidate a series of chemical poisoning lawsuits against Monsanto related to alleged PCB exposure at a school in Sky Valley, rejecting the company’s arguments that such a move would prejudice its defense. King County Superior Court Judge Jim Rogers directed the plaintiffs and Monsanto’s legal team to organize nearly 20 remaining cases into larger trial groups, scheduling two trials for next year and another four in 2026.

Judge Rogers emphasized that he was not mandating a specific number of plaintiffs per trial, but suggested capping the groups at 25. This ruling is part of a larger litigation involving nearly 200 individuals—former students, parents, and teachers—who claim to have suffered health problems from polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) emitted by fluorescent light ballasts and caulking in the aging Sky Valley Education Center. The school, which was remediated for PCB contamination in 2016, is at the center of the ongoing lawsuits.

Nine cases have already been tried, leading to more than $1 billion in damages awarded against Pharmacia LLC, a spinoff of Monsanto. Monsanto has appealed all of its losses. In May, the Washington Court of Appeals agreed to overturn the $185 million verdict for Kerry Erickson, a teacher from Sky Valley, and three others, delivered in the first trial in 2021. The Washington Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal, with oral arguments set for February 11.

On Wednesday, deliberations began for the tenth trial, featuring the largest group of plaintiffs yet—15 individuals who are seeking $4.14 billion in damages, both compensatory and punitive. In an effort to streamline the trial process, Judge Rogers solicited proposals from both sides to shorten the duration of the cases, noting that continuing with the current pace of approximately 14 plaintiffs per trial would stretch litigation until 2037. He added that pursuing individual trials for each plaintiff could drag on for as long as 45 years.

“The current pace of trials would be unjust for all parties involved,” Judge Rogers stated, citing the need for efficiency and timely resolution. Monsanto has consistently opposed consolidation, arguing that jurors would struggle to determine whether PCBs caused each plaintiff’s health issues, given the complexity of the medical histories involved.

However, Judge Rogers pointed to the results of the previous trials as evidence that jurors have been able to evaluate the claims individually, despite the multi-plaintiff format. These past verdicts have included a mistrial in 2022 and a partial mistrial in 2023 due to a deadlocked jury. He noted that safeguards, such as interrogatory verdict forms and post-trial motions, could address any due process concerns.

The judge also highlighted the commonality of the cases, including similar witnesses, expert testimony on exposure, and consistent evidence regarding the history and testing of PCBs. The central issue in all the lawsuits is whether Monsanto adequately communicated the health risks of PCBs over the years.

A schedule has already been set for the eleventh trial in the spring of 2025, with additional trial dates scheduled for the fall of 2025 and January 2026. Judge Rogers also instructed the parties to submit plans for consolidating the cases of plaintiffs whose trials need to be retried due to appellate rulings or previous mistrials.

Additionally, Judge Rogers ordered that the plaintiffs disclose a list of specific conditions they attribute to PCB exposure, and Monsanto must reveal any alternative causes it intends to argue. The judge also suggested the creation of a glossary of terms for the jury, a proposal made by Monsanto. Despite requests from the defense to limit the scope of the trials to "core" injuries, Judge Rogers maintained that the current legal procedures are sufficient for handling such challenges.

A spokesperson for Monsanto expressed disappointment with the ruling, arguing that consolidating cases with up to 25 plaintiffs and dozens of health claims would complicate the determination of individual causation issues and violate the company’s due process rights. Monsanto also suggested postponing further trials until the state Supreme Court issues a ruling in the Erickson case, which could impact key legal issues in the litigation.

Luke Garrett, a lawyer representing some of the plaintiffs, praised the judge’s decision, stating that it would reduce the wait time for the remaining plaintiffs to have their cases heard. He noted that the judge’s approach would expedite the trial process over the next two years, bringing the plaintiffs closer to their day in court.

The plaintiffs are represented by several law firms, including Friedman Rubin PLLP, PWRFL Law, and Schroeter Goldmark & Bender. Monsanto is being defended by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, and others.