Tillery

Defendants in a proposed federal class action over alleged water contamination are asking a federal judge to vacate an order unsealing several motions and exhibits they claim would disclose confidential information.

Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. and its parent company filed a response to a Dec. 21 order to show cause entered by U.S. District Judge Phil Gilbert.

The order mandates that lead plaintiff - the City of Greenville - show cause as to why several motions and exhibits should not be unsealed.

Greenville does not oppose unsealing the motions but argued in a response filed last month that it was trying to comply with a protective order entered in the suit.

The protective order, according to both the plaintiffs and defendants, means that some of the information contained in the motion exhibits was designated confidential by Syngenta.

Greenville proposes to lead a class of water providers and municipalities in Illinois, Missouri, Kansas and other states against Syngenta Crop Protection and Syngenta AG, its Swiss parent company.

Greenville alleges that atrazine made by the defendants runs off farm fields and contaminates drinking water supplies.

Plaintiffs' attorney Stephen Tillery and his team filed six nearly identical state class actions in 2004 in Madison County.

Led by the Holiday Shores Sanitary District, those suits have been proceeding through the discovery process.

Only the Madison County case filed against Syngenta has been progressing.

Currently, that suit is set for a hearing on a third party's motion to quash a defense subpoena and a rule to show cause motion.

Other third party discovery issues in the Holiday Shores' case are before the Fifth District Appellate Court in Mount Vernon.

The motions at issue in the federal case include a motion to strike and a substitute motion to strike.

Copies are currently unavailable.

In its Jan. 4 response, Syngenta points to a protective order Gilbert entered last year that allowed it to designate information as confidential.

Syngenta claims in the response that the plaintiffs were correct in filing their motions under seal because they contain the confidential information.

However, the defense argues that unsealing the motions would be prejudicial.

"It would be fundamentally unfair to Defendants to unseal all of those confidential documents merely because Plaintiffs cited them in a dubious motion to strike," the response reads.

The defense claims that plaintiffs cited "dozens" of privileged depositions and other confidential materials in the exhibits attached to their strike motions.

Mark Pope, Kurtis Reeg and others represent Syngenta.

Reeg is lead defense counsel in the Madison County case.

Tillery and his team represent the plaintiffs in both cases.

Neither class has been certified.

Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge presides over the Holiday Shores case.

The Madison County case number if 04-L-710.

The federal suit filed last year is case number 10-188-JPG.