Hmmm .... Headline does not live up to the filing and court order. The plaintiffs ALSO have 'tried to hide' documents from Monsanto (by that reasoning) - using the IARC study to butress the plaintiff's case, but not wanting Monsanto the right to 'cross-examine' the actual founding documentation of the study.
These are pretty standard proceedings - nothing nefarious on either side. Both Monsanto and IARC have intellectual property that they are legally allowed (and obliged under their legally mandated fiduciary responsibilities) to protect from exposure to the public.
The Judge made his ruling(s) on what could and could not be made public - what could and could not legally be subpoenaed - for both sides.
No evidence has yet been presented. Dr. Ivan Rusyn works for the IARC - the company whose work the PLAINTIFF's resides upon - and the judge ruled the guy doesn't have to appear in depositions because his involvement is minimal (paraphrased) - but the head of IARC will be available for Monsanto to depose.
Balanced proceedings - both sides got less than they wanted - both sides got what the Judge deemed to be justified.
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...
| 