Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 16 Filed 11/11/20 Page 1 of 22
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`__________________________________________
`
`)
`
`))
`
`))
`
`))
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`
`AMERICAN SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION
`
`and
`
`PLAINS COTTON GROWERS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`ANDREW R. WHEELER, et al.,
`
`Defendants, and
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-03190 (RCL)
`
`))
`
`)))
`
`SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC,
`
`)
`)
`)
`Proposed Intervenor-
`)
`Defendant.
`__________________________________________)
`
`SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE
`AND FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
`
`Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC (“Syngenta”) respectfully moves to intervene in this
`
`matter in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 and Local Rule 7. Plaintiffs, who
`
`represent cotton and soybean growers, challenge certain aspects of the registration for three
`
`agricultural herbicide products containing the active ingredient dicamba, recently approved by
`
`the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) under the Federal Insecticide,
`
`Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”). Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that other aspects of
`
`the registrations are lawful. Syngenta owns the registration for one of the three products, a
`
`pesticide product known as Tavium® Plus VaporGrip® Technology (“Tavium”) containing
`
`dicamba and another active herbicide ingredient, s-metolachlor. The challenged registration
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 16 Filed 11/11/20 Page 2 of 22
`
`decision approving Tavium permits Syngenta to sell and distribute Tavium for use on dicamba-
`
`tolerant soybeans and cotton in thirty-four states through December 20, 2025.
`
`As the owner of one of the challenged EPA registrations at issue, Syngenta seeks leave to
`
`intervene as of right in this action to protect its property interests pursuant to Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). In the alternative, Syngenta seeks permission to intervene pursuant to
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b). In addition, Syngenta requests that its deadline to file a
`
`response to the Complaint be extended until the time of Federal Defendants’ response.
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7(m), Syngenta has conferred with counsel for the parties
`
`regarding this motion. Counsel for Plaintiffs indicated Plaintiffs consent to Syngenta’s motion.
`
`Counsel for Defendants indicated that Defendants do not oppose Syngenta’s motion. A Statement
`
`of Points and Authorities in support of this Motion and Proposed Order follow.
`
`DATED: November 11, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Karen Ellis Carr
`Karen Ellis Carr (DC Bar # 975480)
`Donald C. McLean (DC Bar # 412268)
`Kathleen R. Heilman (DC Bar # 1007980)
`Laura Zell (DC Bar # 1044336)
`
`ARENT FOX LLP
`1717 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006-5344
`karen.carr@arentfox.com
`donald.mclean@arentfox.com
`katie.heilman@arentfox.com
`laura.zell@arentfox.com
`(T) (202) 857-6000
`(F) (202 857-6395
`
`Counsel for Proposed Intervenor-Defendant
`Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 16 Filed 11/11/20 Page 3 of 22
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`__________________________________________
`
`)
`
`))
`
`))
`
`))
`
`))
`
`))
`
`AMERICAN SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION
`
`and
`
`PLAINS COTTON GROWERS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`ANDREW R. WHEELER, et al.,
`
`Defendant, and
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-03190 (RCL)
`
`))
`
`)))
`
`SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC,
`
`)
`)
`)
`Proposed Intervenor-
`)
`Defendant.
`__________________________________________)
`
`STATEMENT OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`SYNGENTA’S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
`RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 16 Filed 11/11/20 Page 4 of 22
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1
`BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................1
`A.
`Pesticide Registration Under FIFRA......................................................................1
`B.
`Syngenta and its Tavium Product...........................................................................2
`C.
`Syngenta’s Interest in EPA’s FIFRA Registration Decision At Issue ...................4
`D.
`Procedural History..................................................................................................5
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................5
`I.
`INTERVENTION AS OF RIGHT SHOULD BE GRANTED..........................................5
`A.
`Syngenta Has Article III Standing to Intervene......................................................6
`B.
`Syngenta’s Motion is Timely .................................................................................7
`C.
`Syngenta Has a Direct and Substantial Interest in this Proceeding........................7
`D.
`Syngenta’s Interest Would Be Harmed by an Adverse Ruling ..............................9
`E.
`Syngenta’s Interests Will Not Be Adequately Represented by the Parties ..........10
`AT A MINIMUM, PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION SHOULD BE GRANTED .........12
`SYNGENTA SHOULD BE PERMITTED AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO
`RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT CONCURRENTLY WITH THE
`FEDERAL DEFENDANTS.............................................................................................13
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................14
`
`II.
`III.
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 16 Filed 11/11/20 Page 5 of 22
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Admiral Ins. Co. v. Nat’l Cas. Co.,
`137 F.R.D. 176 (D.D.C. 1991) ..................................................................................................7
`
`Am. Horse Prot. Ass’n v. Veneman,
`200 F.R.D. 153 (D.D.C. 2001) ................................................................................................11
`
`Appleton v. FDA,
`310 F. Supp. 2d 194 (D.D.C. 2004)...........................................................................................7
`
`Bell v. Burson,
`402 U.S. 535 (1971) ..................................................................................................................8
`
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA,
`No. 11-cv-00293, 2013 WL 1729573 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2013) .............................................8
`
`*Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. EPA,
`No. 14-cv-00942 (D.D.C. Sept. 4, 2014), ECF No. 23 .............................................................8
`
`*Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife,
`No. 11-cv-05108 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2012), ECF No. 27........................................................8
`
`Dimond v. Dist. of Columbia,
`792 F.2d 179 (D.C. Cir. 1986).................................................................................................11
`
`*Foster v. Gueory,
`655 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1981).................................................................................................7
`
`Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Geithner,
`644 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 2011)...................................................................................................13
`
`*Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Norton,
`322 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2003)..........................................................................................passim
`
`*Hardin v. Jackson,
`600 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C. 2009).................................................................................6, 10, 11
`
`Indus. Safety Equip. Ass’n v. EPA,
`656 F. Supp. 852 (D.D.C. 1987), aff’d, 837 F.2d 1115 (D.C. Cir. 1988) .................................8
`
`Kleissler v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
`157 F.3d 964 (3d Cir. 1998) ......................................................................................................9
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 16 Filed 11/11/20 Page 6 of 22
`
`Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman,
`313 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2002), abrogated on other grounds by Wilderness
`Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2011)......................................................12
`
`Love v. Thomas,
`858 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir. 1988)...................................................................................................1
`
`Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Costle,
`561 F.2d 904 (D.C. Cir. 1977).................................................................................................11
`
`*Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. EPA,
`99 F.R.D. 607 (D.D.C. 1983) ...........................................................................................passim
`
`*New England Anti-Vivisection Soc’y v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.,
`No. 16-cv-149, 2016 WL 10839560 (D.D.C. Apr. 29, 2016) .................................................13
`
`Nw. Forest Res. Council v. Glickman,
`82 F.3d 825 (9th Cir. 1996).......................................................................................................6
`
`Off. Comm. of Asbestos Claimants of G–I Holding, Inc. v. Heyman,
`No. 01 Civ. 8539, 2003 WL 22790916 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2003).........................................14
`
`People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Babbitt,
`151 F.R.D. 6 (D.D.C. 1993) ..................................................................................................7, 9
`
`In re Pesticide Action Network of N. Am. v. EPA,
`No. 08-cv-01814-MHP (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2008), ECF No. 43.................................................8
`
`Providence Baptist Church v. Hillandale Comm., Ltd.,
`425 F.3d 309 (6th Cir. 2005)...................................................................................................13
`
`*Reckitt Benckiser, Inc. v. Jackson,
`762 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D.D.C. 2011).....................................................................................2, 6, 8
`
`S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Lynch,
`307 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2002)...................................................................................................12
`
`*Sierra Club v. Morton,
`405 U.S. 727 (1972) ..................................................................................................................6
`
`Sierra Club v. U.S. EPA,
`995 F.2d 1478 (9th Cir. 1993), abrogated on other grounds by Wilderness
`Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2011)........................................................8
`
`Trbovic v. United Mine Workers of Am.,
`404 U.S. 528 (1972) ................................................................................................................10
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 16 Filed 11/11/20 Page 7 of 22
`
`United States v. Students Challenging Regul. Agency Proc. (“SCRAP”),
`412 U.S. 669 (1973) ..................................................................................................................6
`
`Windsor v. United States,
`797 F. Supp. 2d 320 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) .....................................................................................13
`
`Ying Qing Lu v. Lezell,
`No. 11-1815, 2012 WL 1929904 (D.D.C. May 29, 2012) ......................................................13
`
`Statutes
`
`5 U.S.C. § 551(8).............................................................................................................................8
`
`7 U.S.C. § 136, et seq. .....................................................................................................................1
`
`7 U.S.C. § 136(bb)...........................................................................................................................2
`
`7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5) ..................................................................................................................1, 2
`
`7 U.S.C. § 136j(a)(1) .......................................................................................................................1
`
`7 U.S.C. § 136j(a)(2)(G)..................................................................................................................2
`
`Other Authorities
`
`40 C.F.R. §§ 152.100–119...............................................................................................................2
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a).......................................................................................5, 10
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(1)(B) ............................................................................5, 12
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(c)...........................................................................................13
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 16 Filed 11/11/20 Page 8 of 22
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Syngenta owns the registration for Tavium, one of three registrations for agricultural
`
`herbicides containing the active ingredient dicamba recently issued by EPA. Syngenta’s
`
`registration is a federal license issued by EPA under FIFRA, without which Syngenta would be
`
`unable to sell and distribute Tavium in the United States. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs ask this
`
`Court to remand to EPA Syngenta’s Tavium registration and two other herbicide registrations for
`
`reconsideration of EPA’s temporal restrictions on the products’ application and spatial
`
`application buffers under FIFRA, the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), and the Administrative
`
`Procedure Act (“APA”). Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that other aspects of the registrations
`
`are lawful.
`
`Syngenta readily meets each of the four requirements for intervention as of right.
`
`Syngenta’s motion is timely, and intervention will not prejudice the existing parties. The case
`
`will address and potentially impact Syngenta’s license under FIFRA to sell and distribute Tavium
`
`and its accompanying label. Finally, EPA, whose focus is on broader interests, will not
`
`adequately represent Syngenta’s private interest in its Tavium registration and could potentially
`
`stake out positions or present arguments different from Syngenta’s, or seek to resolve the case on
`
`disagreeable terms. Accordingly, the Court should grant Syngenta’s Motion to Intervene.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Pesticide Registration Under FIFRA
`
`FIFRA regulates the distribution, sale, and use of pesticides. 7 U.S.C. § 136, et seq.
`
`Under FIFRA, all pesticide products must be registered by EPA before they can be distributed or
`
`sold in the United States. Id. §§ 136a(c)(5), 136j(a)(1); see also Love v. Thomas, 858 F.2d 1347,
`
`1350 (9th Cir. 1988) (FIFRA “establishes an elaborate framework for the regulation of pesticide
`
`use in the United States” under which “[n]o pesticide may be sold or distributed unless it is
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 16 Filed 11/11/20 Page 9 of 22
`
`registered with the EPA”). A pesticide registration operates as a “product-specific license
`
`describing the terms and conditions under which the product can be legally distributed, sold, and
`
`used.” Reckitt Benckiser, Inc. v. Jackson, 762 F. Supp. 2d 34, 36 (D.D.C. 2011) (citation
`
`omitted).
`
`To obtain a pesticide registration, an applicant must submit extensive scientific data to
`
`EPA to demonstrate that use of the product in accordance with its label will not pose
`
`“unreasonable risk to man or the environment.” 7 U.S.C. § 136(bb). EPA can register a
`
`pesticide only if it determines that it “will perform its intended function without unreasonable
`
`adverse effects on the environment” and that “when used in accordance with widespread and
`
`commonly recognized practice it will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the
`
`environment.” Id. § 136a(c)(5)(C), (D); see also id. § 136(bb) (defining “unreasonable adverse
`
`effects”).
`
`Every registered pesticide product is required to display an EPA-approved label that
`
`enumerates approved uses, applications, and directions for use. Id. § 136a; 40 C.F.R. §§
`
`152.100–119. “[U]se [of] any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling” is
`
`unlawful. 7 U.S.C. § 136j(a)(2)(G).
`
`B.
`
`Syngenta and its Tavium Product
`
`Syngenta offers a portfolio of safe, effective crop protection products, including
`
`herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, and seed treatments. Through the EPA decision at issue in
`
`this case, Syngenta holds a registration for a pesticide product containing the active herbicide
`
`ingredients dicamba and s-metolachlor, sold under the brand name Tavium® Plus VaporGrip®
`
`Technology. Declaration of Jeff Cecil (“Cecil Decl.”), Ex. A, ¶ 5. Dicamba is an herbicide that
`
`EPA first approved under FIFRA in 1967 and has been widely used by growers since then to
`
`control broadleaf weeds and grasses. Id. ¶ 4. S-metolachlor, which EPA first approved in 1997,
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 16 Filed 11/11/20 Page 10 of 22
`
`is also effective against broadleaf weeds and grasses. Id. ¶ 5. Tavium is a critical crop protection
`
`tool that provides many benefits to agricultural growers in mitigating weed pressures and
`
`increasing yields.
`
`Under the registration challenged in this case, Tavium is to be used on soybean and
`
`cotton plants genetically engineered to tolerate the application of dicamba. Id. ¶ 6. Growers can
`
`apply Tavium directly to their fields to address weeds without injuring their dicamba-tolerant
`
`(“DT”) soybean and DT cotton plants.1 Id. ¶ 6. Tavium is the only product on the market
`
`comprised of a premix of two active ingredients intended for use on DT soybeans and DT cotton.
`
`Tavium provides significant benefits to agricultural growers by controlling annual
`
`grasses, and small and large seeded broadleaf weeds, such as ragweed, marestail, Palmer
`
`amaranth, and waterhemp. Id. ¶ 7. As a premix formulation, Tavium offers built-in pesticide
`
`resistance management and convenience, helping to save growers time and money with tank
`
`mixing. Id.
`
`Tavium provides two modes of action for resistance management, providing contact
`
`control to manage weeds after they emerge from the soil (dicamba), without hurting the crop, and
`
`residual control to manage weeds before they emerge (s-metolachlor). Id. ¶ 8. Because Tavium
`
`contains these two separate active ingredients, it is applied during the early part of the growing
`
`season and controls a broad range of weeds longer than dicamba-only products. Id. Tavium’s
`
`comprehensive and season-long weed management capabilities provide excellent crop safety,
`
`minimize impacts on the environment, and contribute to a sustainable agricultural economy. Id.
`
`
`
`1 The United States Department of Agriculture reviewed and authorized cultivation of the DT
`crops in 2015.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 16 Filed 11/11/20 Page 11 of 22
`
`C.
`
`Syngenta’s Interest in EPA’s FIFRA Registration Decision At Issue.
`
`EPA first registered Tavium on April 5, 2019. Id. ¶ 9. That registration was time-limited
`
`and scheduled to expire on December 20, 2020. Id. Syngenta’s original Tavium registration
`
`remained in place until October 27, 2020.2 Id. On August 12, 2020, Syngenta applied to EPA for
`
`an amendment to Tavium’s label that proposed extending the December 20, 2020 expiration date.
`
`Id. ¶ 10. On October 27, 2020, EPA issued under Section 3(c)(5) of FIFRA an unconditional
`
`registration for Tavium and the two other end-use dicamba products at issue, XtendiMax® with
`
`VaporGrip® Technology and Engenia®. Id. EPA’s registration of Tavium operates as a license
`
`and confers on Syngenta the right to market and sell Tavium in the United States for use on DT
`
`cotton and DT soybean to control grass and broadleaf weeds. Id. ¶¶ 10–12.
`
`Syngenta has invested significant resources to research, develop, and obtain its EPA
`
`registration for Tavium, including but not limited to the costs of environmental studies required
`
`by EPA to support the registration of this product under FIFRA. Id. ¶ 14. Syngenta has also
`
`participated extensively in EPA’s regulatory processes concerning Tavium. Id. Tavium has
`
`remained registered with EPA since April 2019, and Syngenta has continued to invest money and
`
`other resources in Tavium throughout the life of its registration, including since EPA’s October
`
`27, 2020 decision to extend Tavium’s registration. Id. ¶ 15. Tavium has been and will continue
`
`to be a commercially important product in Syngenta’s crop protection portfolio. Id. ¶ 16.
`
`
`
`2 Syngenta’s Tavium registration was not subject to a June 3, 2020 order from the United States
`Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that vacated the registration of XtendiMax® with
`VaporGrip® Technology, FeXapan® herbicide Plus VaporGrip® Technology, and Engenia®,
`owned by Bayer CropScience, DuPont (now Corteva Agriscience), and BASF, respectively.
`Nat’l Fam. Farm Coal., et al., v. U.S. EPA, et al., No. 19-70115 (9th Cir. June 3, 2020).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 16 Filed 11/11/20 Page 12 of 22
`
`D.
`
`Procedural History
`
`On November 4, 2020, Plaintiffs, organizations representing cotton and soybean growers,
`
`brought suit challenging EPA’s October 27, 2020 decision to approve the three dicamba products
`
`at issue. The Complaint seeks remand and reconsideration by EPA of certain application and use
`
`restrictions on dicamba, alleging they are arbitrary and capricious and beyond the Agency’s
`
`authority under FIFRA, the ESA, and the APA. Specifically, Plaintiffs ask the Court to order
`
`EPA to reconsider its imposition of application cutoff dates (June 30 and July 30) after which
`
`Tavium may not be applied to DT soybeans and DT cotton, respectively, and spatial application
`
`buffers within which Tavium may not be applied. Importantly, Plaintiffs also ask the Court
`
`confirm that other aspects of EPA’s registration decision satisfy FIFRA, the ESA, and the APA.
`
`Each of these requests could materially impact Syngenta’s Tavium registration.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`For the reasons discussed below, Syngenta should be permitted to intervene in this case
`
`as of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). In the alternative, Syngenta
`
`should be granted permission to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(1)(B).
`
`I.
`
`Intervention as of Right Should Be Granted.
`
`As owner of the challenged Tavium registration, Syngenta is entitled to intervene in this
`
`action as of right. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), district courts consider four
`
`factors to determine whether a non-party may intervene as of right: (1) timeliness; (2) the
`
`movant’s interest relating to the property at issue; (3) whether the outcome may impair or
`
`impede the movant’s interest; and (4) adequacy of representation by existing parties. Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 24(a)(2). In addition, in this Circuit, a party seeking to intervene as of right under Rule
`
`24(a)(2) must demonstrate that it has standing under Article III of the Constitution. Fund for
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 16 Filed 11/11/20 Page 13 of 22
`
`Animals, Inc. v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728, 731–32 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Syngenta easily satisfies each of
`
`these requirements.
`
`A.
`
`Syngenta Has Article III Standing to Intervene.
`
`A prospective intervenor must demonstrate that it has Article III standing by showing:
`
`“(1) injury-in-fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressability.” Id. at 733 (citing Lujan v. Defs. of
`
`Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). This Court has observed that for a FIFRA registrant of a
`
`challenged pesticide product, standing “is not a high hurdle . . . to clear.” Hardin v. Jackson, 600
`
`F. Supp. 2d 13, 15 (D.D.C. 2009). Syngenta is the owner of a legally protectable property
`
`interest in its Tavium registration, see Reckitt Benckiser, 762 F. Supp. 2d at 36, which is the
`
`subject of this suit. Syngenta’s standing is therefore self-evident. Hardin, 600 F. Supp. 2d at 15.
`
`Courts have also made clear that direct economic injury is sufficient to confer standing.
`
`Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 733–34 (1972) (“[E]conomic injuries have long been
`
`recognized as sufficient to lay the basis for standing.”); see also United States v. Students
`
`Challenging Regul. Agency Proc. (“SCRAP”), 412 U.S. 669, 689 n.14 (1973) (“We have allowed
`
`important interests to be vindicated by plaintiffs with no more at stake in the outcome of an
`
`action than . . . a $5 fine and costs and a $1.50 poll tax[.]”). The economic impact Syngenta
`
`faces here exceeds the “identifiable trifle” held sufficient to confer standing. SCRAP, 412 U.S. at
`
`689 n.14.
`
`Syngenta has invested significant resources in developing Tavium and in participating in
`
`EPA’s extensive and rigorous regulatory processes leading to registration. Cecil Decl. ¶ 14; see
`
`also Nw. Forest Res. Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 837 (9th Cir. 1996) (approving
`
`intervention by entities “directly involved in . . . the administrative proceedings out of which the
`
`litigation arose”). A ruling in this action that in any way affects, changes, conditions, or restricts
`
`Syngenta’s Tavium registration or its approved label has the potential to cause Syngenta
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 16 Filed 11/11/20 Page 14 of 22
`
`economic injury. Cecil Decl. ¶ 18. Syngenta faces, among other things, loss of its investment in
`
`the research and development of Tavium; loss of its investment in its registration of Tavium at
`
`EPA and with the states where Tavium is approved for use; loss of investment in labeling the
`
`product for sale and costs related to relabeling; lost income and profits; and disruption of
`
`business relationships with distributors and customers who rely on Tavium as an important
`
`agricultural tool. Id. ¶ 18. Syngenta would also be injured by an adverse ruling from the Court
`
`in the form of additional compliance and administrative costs. Id. Syngenta has Article III
`
`standing to intervene in this action.
`
`B.
`
`Syngenta’s Motion is Timely.
`
`There can be no dispute that Syngenta’s motion is timely. This motion is being filed
`
`within seven days of the filing of the Complaint—squarely within the timeframes this Court has
`
`deemed motions to intervene timely. See, e.g., Fund for Animals, 322 F.3d at 735 (motion to
`
`intervene timely when filed less than two months after complaint); Appleton v. FDA, 310 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 194, 197 (D.D.C. 2004) (motion to intervene timely when filed within two months of
`
`agency’s notification of pending suit); PETA, 151 F.R.D. at 7 (motion to intervene timely when
`
`filed eleven days after complaint); Admiral Ins. Co. v. Nat’l Cas. Co., 137 F.R.D. 176, 177
`
`(D.D.C. 1991) (motions to intervene are generally timely when filed before “the major
`
`substantive issues in [the] case” have been “argued or resolved”). Indeed, no substantive action
`
`has taken place in this case since the Complaint was filed, and Syngenta’s full participation in
`
`this action will not cause delay or prejudice any party’s rights.
`
`C.
`
`Syngenta Has a Direct and Substantial Interest in this Proceeding.
`
`As owner of the Tavium registration subject to challenge, Syngenta has a significantly
`
`protectable interest at stake in this matter. “An intervenor’s interest is obvious when he asserts a
`
`claim to property that is the subject matter of the suit.” Foster v. Gueory, 655 F.2d 1319, 1324
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 16 Filed 11/11/20 Page 15 of 22
`
`(D.C. Cir. 1981). Under the APA, FIFRA registrations are considered licenses that are protected
`
`by law. 5 U.S.C. § 551(8) (“license” includes “the whole or a part of an agency permit,
`
`certificate, approval, registration . . . or other form of permission”). As a consequence, FIFRA
`
`registrations have been held to be significantly protectable property interests for purposes of
`
`determining a third party’s right to intervene in an action. See, e.g., Nat. Res. Def. Council v.
`
`U.S. EPA, 99 F.R.D. 607, 609 (D.D.C. 1983) (“NRDC”) (pesticide industry representatives “can
`
`be said to have a substantial and direct interest in the subject” of the litigation challenging the
`
`procedures by which EPA determined that their pesticide products “merited continued
`
`registration”); Reckitt Benckiser, 762 F. Supp. 2d at 36; see also Ctr. for Biological Diversity v.
`
`EPA, No. 11-cv-00293, 2013 WL 1729573, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2013) (“The applicants
`
`are owners of the pesticide registrations, and thus have property and financial interests in the
`
`registrations.”); Mem. and Order at 4, In re Pesticide Action Network of N. Am. v. EPA, No. 08-
`
`cv-01814-MHP (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2008), ECF No. 43 (FIFRA registrations “are essentially
`
`government licenses to produce, distribute and sell pesticides,” and they “constitute property”).
`
`This property interest cannot be annulled without due process of law. See, e.g., Bell v. Burson,
`
`402 U.S. 535, 539 (1971); Indus. Safety Equip. Ass’n v. EPA, 656 F. Supp. 852, 856 (D.D.C.
`
`1987), aff’d, 837 F.2d 1115 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (“It is well settled that an agency license can create
`
`a protectible [sic] property interest, such that it cannot be revoked without due process of law.”).
`
`Thus, courts routinely allow pesticide registrants to intervene in proceedings where their
`
`property interests are at stake. Order Granting Mot. to Intervene, Ctr. for Biological Diversity v.
`
`U.S. EPA, No. 14-cv-00942 (D.D.C. Sept. 4, 2014), ECF No. 23; Order Granting Mot. to
`
`Intervene at 2–3, Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife, No. 11-cv-05108 (N.D.
`
`Cal. Mar. 22, 2012), ECF No. 27; cf. Sierra Club v. U.S. EPA, 995 F.2d 1478, 1485–86 (9th Cir.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 16 Filed 11/11/20 Page 16 of 22
`
`1993) (holders of permits issued under the Clean Water Act have a “protectable interest”
`
`supporting intervention in cases challenging the permits), abrogated on other grounds by
`
`Wilderness Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2011).
`
`Syngenta’s significantly protectable interest in maintaining its Tavium registration is
`
`indisputable, and intervention should be granted for this reason alone. See Kleissler v. U.S.
`
`Forest Serv., 157 F.3d 964, 973 (3d Cir. 1998) (timber industry’s economic interests were
`
`sufficient for intervention in suit against agency seeking to restrict logging in national forest).
`
`D.
`
`Syngenta’s Interest Would Be Harmed by an Adverse Ruling
`
`Syngenta’s legally protectable interest in its Tavium registration would be directly
`
`impaired by an adverse ruling. In determining whether the disposition of a suit would impair or
`
`impede a proposed intervenor’s interests, courts in this Circuit look to the “‘practical
`
`consequences’ of denying intervention” from the perspective of the moving party. Fund for
`
`Animals, 322 F.3d at 735, quoting Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Costle, 561 F.2d 904, 909 (D.C. Cir.
`
`1977). One of Plaintiffs’ claims asks the Court to address whether aspects of EPA’s registration
`
`decision satisfy FIFRA, the ESA, and the APA. This alone is a sufficient interest, directly related
`
`to the subject of this action, to support intervention as of right. See, e.g., People for the Ethical
`
`Treatment of Animals v. Babbitt, 151 F.R.D. 6, 8 (D.D.C. 1993) (“PETA”) (“[Intervenor-
`
`Defendant] has . . . demonstrated that denial of his Motion to Intervene would impair this
`
`cognizable interest in protecting his business. . . . disposing of this lawsuit would directly impair
`
`[his] interest.”); see also NRDC, 99 F.R.D. at 609 (holding the standard met where disposition of
`
`the case would nullify proposed intervenors’ cumulative efforts to have their product
`
`registrations upheld by EPA); Cecil Decl. ¶ 18. Separately, if Plaintiffs prevail on their claims,
`
`Syngenta’s registration could be subject to an order by this Court modifying its terms, requiring
`
`Syngenta to bear duplicative costs to register Tavium with the states and relabel the product for
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 16 Filed 11/11/20 Page 17 of 22
`
`sale, as well as additional costs to participate in further EPA administrative processes. See Cecil
`
`Decl. ¶ 18. An order modifying the registration’s terms could also disrupt Syngenta’s business
`
`relationships with distributors and customers. Id.
`
`E.
`
`Syngenta’s Interests Will Not Be Adequately Represented by the Parties.
`
`So long as a proposed intervenor meets the timeliness and impairment of interest
`
`requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), intervention will be permitted
`
`as of right unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties. Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 24(a)(2). Intervenors “have only the ‘minimal’ burden of showing that the representation
`