govinfo:USCOURTS-vtd-2_22-cv-00215-8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE 
DISTRICT OF VERMONT 
 
BURLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, ) 
      ) 
  Plaintiff,  ) 
      ) 
 v.     ) Case No. 2:22-cv-215 
      ) 
MONSANTO CO., SOLUTIA, INC., ) 
and PHARMACIA LLC,   ) 
      ) 
  Defendants.  ) 
 
OPINION AND ORDER 
 
 The Burlington School District (“BSD”) commenced this 
action after discovering polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) at 
Burlington High School. Defendants Monsanto Co., Solutia, Inc., 
and Pharmacia LLC (collectively “Defendants”) are allegedly 
successors to the old Monsanto company, which was the primary 
manufacturer of PCBs in the United States for several decades. 
On April 16, 2026, the Court denied Defendants’ motion for 
summary judgment. Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion 
to clarify and amend the summary judgment ruling by striking one 
sentence from the Opinion and Order. The sentence at issue 
contains previously-undisputed statements of fact and is not 
material to the Court’s ruling. In addition to their request for 
an amended Opinion and Order, Defendants ask the Court to allow 
them to now dispute those statements of fact. For reasons set 
forth below, Defendants’ motion is granted. 
2:22-cv-00215-wks     Document 222     Filed 06/11/26     Page 1 of 8
2 
 
Factual Background 
Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims on 
November 5, 2025. ECF No. 134. On April 16, 2026, the Court 
denied the motion. ECF No. 204. In the Factual Background 
section of its Opinion and Order, the Court included the 
following sentence: “Between 1955 and 1977, Monsanto’s profits 
from PCB sales were approximately $850 million dollars, which 
would be equivalent to over $4.6 billion today.” Id. at 10.  
That sentence was based upon assertions set forth in BSD’s 
Statement of Additional Material Facts, submitted in support of 
its opposition to the motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 171-1 
at 32. In paragraph 111 of its factual statement, BSD stated: 
“Between 1955 to 1977, Monsanto’s profits from PCB sales were 
approximately $850 million, which would be worth over $4.6 
billion today. Ex. A (Rose) at 21.” Id. In response, Defendants 
stated those facts were “Undisputed.” ECF No. 190-1 at 61. 
Defendants now ask for leave to change that response. They 
also ask the Court to strike those factual statements from its 
Opinion and Order. Defendants explain that the numbers in 
question come from a May 28, 2025 ruling by the State of 
Washington Superior Court in Rose et al. v. Pharmacia LLC, Doc. 
18-2-58239-3 SEA (“Rose”).  The Rose decision concluded: “[t]he 
evidence at trial showed that . . . Monsanto’s profits for PCB 
sales were approximately $850 million, which would be worth over 
2:22-cv-00215-wks     Document 222     Filed 06/11/26     Page 2 of 8
3 
 
$4.6 billion today.” ECF No. 213-1 at 20. The Rose court 
apparently assumed that the $850 million figure was in 1977 
dollars. Defendants and BSD agree that this assumption was an 
error, as the $850 million number had already been updated to a 
more current dollar value. Accordingly, the $4.6 billion figure 
was improperly calculated and incorrect. 
BSD does not object to amendment of this Court’s April 16, 
2026 Opinion and Order to the extent the reference to $4.6 
billion is deleted. BSD does object to deletion of the reference 
to $850 million. Neither figure was material to the Court’s 
summary judgment ruling. 
Defendants currently contest both figures. They claim that 
when characterizing BSD’s statement of fact as “undisputed,” 
they intended to concede only that Rose was the source of the 
numbers – not that the numbers themselves were accurate. 
Defendants therefore request leave to amend their response to 
paragraph 111 of BSD’s Statement of Additional Facts to read: 
“Undisputed that the 5/25/2025 Rose Order contains that figure. 
Disputed as to the amount of Monsanto’s profits from PCB sales.” 
ECF No. 213 at 2. 
BSD has reportedly asked Defendants to stipulate to the 
$850 million profit figure for the purpose of trial. ECF No. 
215-1 (email correspondence among counsel). Defendants have thus 
far declined. Id. BSD also informs the Court that it intends to 
2:22-cv-00215-wks     Document 222     Filed 06/11/26     Page 3 of 8
4 
 
file an “estoppel motion” arguing that Defendants are estopped 
from challenging the findings in the Rose decision. ECF No. 215 
at 8. 
Discussion 
 BSD argues that the pending motion should be denied for 
several reasons, including Defendants’ failure to cite a rule 
governing their request for amendment and revision. BSD also 
contends that Defendants have not met the standard for 
reconsideration. The Court does not construe the pending motion 
as one for reconsideration, as the motion does not seek any 
substantive changes to the summary judgment decision. Indeed, if 
Defendants’ motion is granted, the only impact on the Opinion 
and Order will be the deletion of a single factual sentence. 
 Given that revision of Defendants’ fact response, and any 
corresponding amendment to the Court’s decision, will have no 
substantive impact on summary judgment, the Court turns to the 
potential impact on trial. BSD submits that Defendants’ response 
constituted a judicial admission that remains binding throughout 
the case. Defendants argue a factual concession at summary 
judgment does not carry over to trial. The Court agrees with 
Defendants’ position on this point, as it is consistent with 
summary judgment practice within the Second Circuit. See, e.g., 
Ramgoolie v. Ramgoolie, No. 16-CV-3345 (VEC)(SN), 2018 WL 
4266015, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2018) (“That these facts were 
2:22-cv-00215-wks     Document 222     Filed 06/11/26     Page 4 of 8
5 
 
deemed admitted at summary judgment does not preclude Defendant 
from challenging Plaintiff’s evidence at trial.”). 
 Statements of material fact, and responses to those 
statements, are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 
and Local Rule 56. Neither Rule states that an admission of 
fact, or a statement that a fact is undisputed, constitutes a 
judicial admission for the purpose of trial. Some Local Rules 
within this Circuit explicitly state that such responses are 
strictly limited to the summary judgment process. See, e.g., 
Cortes v. City of New York, No. 14CV03014LDHRML, 2019 WL 
5592853, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2019) (citing Local Rule 56.1 
which states that, unless controverted, each factual statement 
by the moving party “will be deemed to be admitted for purposes 
of the motion”) (emphasis supplied)); Ramgoolie, 2018 WL 
4266015, at *7 (“under Rule 56.1(c), facts are deemed admitted 
for the purposes of the motion”). Consequently, “district courts 
in this circuit routinely remind litigants that their Local Rule 
56.1 statements may be deemed admitted for the purposes of a 
summary-judgment motion, but not trial.” Cortes, 2019 WL 
5592853, at *4; see Marrero v. Air Brook Limousine, No. 13 CIV. 
2791 CM, 2014 WL 1623706, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2014) (“all 
statements of fact contained in defendants’ Rule 56.1 Statement 
are deemed admitted for the purposes of this motion (albeit not 
for trial)”).  
2:22-cv-00215-wks     Document 222     Filed 06/11/26     Page 5 of 8
6 
 
To be considered a binding judicial admission, “a statement 
must have sufficient formality or conclusiveness.” In re Motors 
Liquidation Co., 957 F.3d 357, 360 (2d Cir. 2020) (internal 
quotation marks and citation omitted). Because a response to a 
factual submission at summary judgment is limited to that 
proceeding, it does not possess the “conclusiveness” required to 
constitute such an admission. See Lovati v. Petroleos de 
Venezuela, S.A., No. 1:19-CV-04799 (ALC) (HJR), 2025 WL 3677013, 
at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2025) (“Rule 56.1 statements do not 
extend beyond the summary judgement context and as such are not 
judicial admissions binding at trial.”). In sum, a factual 
concession at summary judgment does not constitute a stipulation 
of fact for use at trial. 
BSD cites a series of cases for support, none of which are 
directly on point. In Christian Legal Society Chapter of the 
University of California, Hastings College of the Law v. 
Martinez, the Supreme Court considered a ruling on cross-motions 
for summary judgment. 561 U.S. 661, 673-74, 678 (2010). The 
Court did not address whether the parties’ factual stipulations 
would have been binding at trial. In Hoodho v. Holder, the 
Second Circuit considered a concession of removability in the 
context of federal immigration regulations. 558 F.3d 184, 192 
(2d Cir. 2009) (“we hold that an IJ does not err by accepting an 
alien’s concession of removability when that concession is not 
2:22-cv-00215-wks     Document 222     Filed 06/11/26     Page 6 of 8
7 
 
plainly contradicted by record evidence”). And in American 
Airlines, Inc. v. Sureway Worldwide, LLC, the district court 
denied a request to retract a concession at summary judgment 
where the issue was material, and the retraction would cause 
“obvious prejudice” to the opposing party. No. 03 CV 4159 (ILG), 
2008 WL 11411299, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2008) 
(“consideration of the new information provided by Global would 
permit the injection of a questionable issue of fact where 
American has otherwise met the standard for summary judgment”). 
Here, the proposed changes are neither material nor 
prejudicial. It is undisputed that the cited dollar values 
played no role in the Court’s consideration of the legal issues 
presented at summary judgment. Furthermore, striking those 
values from the Opinion and Order and allowing Defendants to 
amend their response will cause no prejudice, since the response 
was not a judicial admission to which Defendants would be bound 
at trial. Finally, the parties agree that the $4.6 billion 
number in the Rose decision, cited in BSD’s Statement of 
Additional Material Facts, was incorrect, and that the Court may 
strike that figure from its Opinion and Order. 
In light of these considerations, Defendants’ motion is 
granted. They may amend their response to paragraph 111 of BSD’s 
Statement of Additional Material Facts within 14 days of this 
Opinion and Order to reflect that both the $850 million and $4.6
2:22-cv-00215-wks     Document 222     Filed 06/11/26     Page 7 of 8
billion figures are disputed. The Court will issue an amended 
summary judgment ruling striking the entire sentence in 
question, including references to both figures.1 
Conclusion 
 For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to 
clarify and amend (ECF No. 213) is granted. 
 
 DATED at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this 11 th 
day of June 2026. 
 
       /s/ William K. Sessions III 
       Hon. William K. Sessions III 
       U.S. District Court Judge 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
1 The Court offers no opinion on BSD’s argument that Defendants 
are estopped by rulings in the Rose decision. BSD has informed 
the Court that it will present that issue in a future motion. 
2:22-cv-00215-wks     Document 222     Filed 06/11/26     Page 8 of 8

Passage view · GavelSight