In 2011, plaintiff Alva Pilliod, 69, a retiree, was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In 2015, Mr. Pilliod’s wife, plaintiff Alberta Pilliod, 71, a retiree, was diagnosed with central nervous system lymphoma, a rare form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that presented itself as a brain tumor. The Pilliods had used Roundup weed killer on their properties since the 1970s. They claimed that glyphosate, an active ingredient in Roundup, caused their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The Pilliods sued Roundup’s manufacturer Monsanto Co., and the distributors of the herbicide product, Wilbur-Ellis Co., LLC and Wilbur-Ellis Feed, LLC. The lawsuit alleged design defect, failure to warn, strict liability, negligence and negligent failure to warn. The Pilliods’ complaint and other California cases against Monsanto were consolidated into the Roundup Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings (JCCP No. 4953), chaired by Judge Ioana Petrou. An expedited trial was requested for the Pilliods. On Aug. 4, 2017, the court issued an order severing the complaints of plaintiffs Charles Baker, John Novak, Sharon Rowland, Sharon McClurg and Marjorie Grubka, and directed that those separate complaints would be transferred to other courts. In addition, the parties in the Pilliods’ matter agreed to dismiss the Wilbur-Ellis defendants prior to trial. As a result, the matter proceeded with only the Pilliods’ claims against Monsanto. The Pilliods’ counsel contended that studies concluded that exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and that, in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen” based on a review of the available literature, which included over 1,000 studies. Counsel argued that Monsanto knew, or had reason to know, that its Roundup products were defective, inherently dangerous and unsafe when used in the manner instructed and provided by Monsanto. Plaintiffs’ counsel also argued that Monsanto did not sufficiently test, investigate or study its Roundup products or, specifically, the active ingredient glyphosate, and that Monsanto knew, or should have known, at the time of its marketing of the Roundup products that exposure to Roundup, and, specifically, its active ingredient glyphosate, could result in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Plaintiffs’ counsel further argued that Monsanto did not conduct adequate post-marketing surveillance of its Roundup products and that Monsanto could have employed safer alternative designs and formulations. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the information Monsanto did provide failed to include sufficient warnings and precautions that would have enabled those exposed, such as the Pilliods, to utilize the products safely and with adequate protection. Counsel argued that, instead, Monsanto disseminated information that was inaccurate and misleading, and that ailed to communicate accurately or adequately, the comparative severity, duration and extent of the risk of associated with use of and/or exposure to Roundup and glyphosate. Plaintiffs’ counsel also argued that Monsanto continued to aggressively promote the efficacy of its products, even after it knew, or should have known, of the unreasonable risks from use or exposure and that Monsanto concealed, downplayed or otherwise suppressed, through aggressive marketing and promotion, any information or research about the risks and dangers of exposure to Roundup and glyphosate. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Monsanto systematically downplayed contrary evidence about the risks, incidence and prevalence of the side effects of Roundup. Defense counsel denied the Pilliods’ allegations that glyphosate causes cancer and contended that leading health regulators around the world have repeatedly concluded that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides can be used safely as directed and that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, based on an extensive body of science spanning more than 40 years. Counsel also contended that, given the extensive body of scientific research and the international consensus among leading health regulators, glyphosate is not carcinogenic, that Monsanto had no duty or factual basis to warn about non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and that the product was approved as one that could be used safely as directed. Defense counsel further contended that, before 2015, no reputable, recognized scientific body in the world had drawn the conclusion that glyphosate was a probable human carcinogen. In addition, defense counsel contended that the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s hazard assessment and opinion on glyphosate is, and remains an outlier, as leading regulatory authorities worldwide have continued to reaffirm their determinations that glyphosate-based herbicides can be used safely as directed and that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, based on their own independent risk assessments., Mr. Pilliod was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which developed in his bones, pelvis and spine. Ms. Pilliod was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which developed in her brain. They both underwent chemotherapy. The Pilliods sought recovery of their respective medical costs and damages for their respective past and future pain and suffering. They also sought recovery of punitive damages against Monsanto for the company’s alleged conscious disregard for the safety of others. Defense counsel argued that the Pilliods each carried multiple risk factors for the development of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, including prior histories of cancer, obesity, tobacco abuse and other autoimmune conditions. Counsel contended that the Pilliods’ risks were recognized but diminished by the Pilliods’ experts who testified as to specific causation. Defense counsel argued that Monsanto’s actions were aligned with regulatory approvals worldwide and that plaintiffs’ counsel failed to prove that Monsanto acted with “malice, oppression or fraud,” as required for a punitive award.