throbber
Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 39 Filed 04/06/21 Page 1 of 17
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`AMERICAN SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION
`and PLAINS COTTON GROWERS,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`Michael S. Regan,1 et. al.
`
`Defendants,
`
`and
`
`BASF CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant-Intervenor.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-03190 (RCL)
`
`DEFENDANT- INTERVENOR BASF CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`Pursuant to Rule 24(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant-Intervenor
`
`BASF Corporation submits this Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive
`
`Relief (filed November 4, 2020).
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`BASF admits generally that herbicide-resistant weeds are a challenge for farmers
`
`and that dicamba and DT crops are critical weapons for farmers in their fight against these
`
`weeds.
`
`
`1 Automatically substituted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 39 Filed 04/06/21 Page 2 of 17
`
`4.
`
`BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 4.
`
`5.
`
`BASF admits that on October 27, 2020, EPA granted registrations under the
`
`Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) approving use of dicamba on DT
`
`soybeans and cotton and imposing conditions on those uses.
`
`6.
`
`BASF admits the first sentence of paragraph 6. BASF lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in the second sentence of
`
`Paragraph 6.
`
`7.
`
`BASF admits that some conditions included in the new registrations are more
`
`stringent than those found in prior registrations. BASF lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the other allegations in Paragraph 7.
`
`8.
`
`Paragraph 8 characterizes this lawsuit and accordingly does not require a
`
`response.
`
`9.
`
`The first sentence of Paragraph 9 characterizes this lawsuit and accordingly does
`
`not require a response. BASF admits the allegations in the second and third sentences of
`
`Paragraph 9.
`
`PARTIES
`
`10.
`
`BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 10, which concern the interests and actions of Plaintiffs.
`
`11.
`
`BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 11, which concern the interests and actions of Plaintiffs.
`
`12.
`
`BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 12, which concern the interests and actions of Plaintiffs.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 39 Filed 04/06/21 Page 3 of 17
`
`13.
`
`BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 13, which concern the interests and actions of Plaintiffs.
`
`14.
`
`BASF denies that Andrew R. Wheeler is the current EPA Administrator. While
`
`he held that position when the original Complaint was filed, the current EPA Administrator is
`
`Michael S. Regan. BASF admits the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`17.
`
`BASF admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims
`
`under 7 U.S.C. § 136n(a), because the October 27, 2020 registration orders were final agency
`
`actions not following a “public hearing.” BASF further informs the Court that after this action
`
`was filed on November 4, 2020, other actions involving the same October 27, 2020 registration
`
`orders were filed in other courts. Plaintiffs American Soybean Association and Plains Cotton
`
`Growers filed protective petitions in the D.C. Circuit and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeal,
`
`respectively, to preserve their ability to bring their claims if it is subsequently determined that
`
`there was a “public hearing” and thus that the Courts of Appeal have exclusive jurisdiction over
`
`their claims under 7 U.S.C. § 136n(b).2 The National Family Farm Coalition, Center for Food
`
`Safety, Center for Biological Diversity, and Pesticide Action Network North America filed a
`
`petition for review in the Ninth Circuit on December 21, 2020 seeking to have the October 27,
`
`
`2 See Petition for Review, Am. Soybean Ass’n v. Wheeler, 20-1441 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 5, 2020);
`Petition for Review, Am. Soybean Ass’n v. Wheeler, 20-1445 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 10, 2020); Petition
`for Review, Plains Cotton Growers v. Wheeler, 20-61055 (5th Cir. Nov. 13, 2020). American
`Soybean Association apparently filed two protective petitions because of uncertainty over how
`soon petitions for review can be filed pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 23.6 and 7 U.S.C. § 136n(b).
`Plains Cotton Growers filed their protective petition in the Fifth Circuit because they do not
`reside or have a place of business within the D.C. Circuit. 7 U.S.C. § 136n(b).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 39 Filed 04/06/21 Page 4 of 17
`
`2020 registrations found unlawful and vacated.3 By Order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
`
`Litigation, those petitions have all been transferred to and consolidated in the D.C. Circuit.4 On
`
`December 23, 2020, the National Family Farm Coalition, Center for Food Safety, Center for
`
`Biological Diversity, and Pesticide Action Network North America filed an action in the U.S.
`
`District Court for the District of Arizona, seeking to have the October 27, 2020 registrations
`
`found unlawful and vacated.5 Unopposed motions for abeyance filed by the Federal Defendants
`
`were granted in all three pending actions, with this action held in abeyance until April 6, 2021
`
`and the actions pending in the Arizona District Court and the D.C. Circuit Court held in
`
`abeyance until April 9, 2021.6
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`Paragraph 18 states conclusions of law, to which no response is required.
`
`BASF admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Administrator Regan,
`
`Acting Division Director Echeverria, and EPA.
`
`20.
`
`BASF admits that venue is proper in this District.
`
`
`3 See Petition for Review, National Family Farm Coalition v. EPA, 20-73750 (9th Cir. Dec. 21,
`2020).
`4 See Notice of Consolidation Order, Am. Soybean Ass’n v. Wheeler, 20-1441 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 3,
`2020); Id., Order (Feb. 2, 2021); Clerk Order, Plains Cotton Growers v. Wheeler, 20-61055 (5th
`Cir. Dec. 3, 2020); Order, National Family Farm Coalition v. EPA, 20-73750 (9th Cir. Jan. 26,
`2021).
`5 See Complaint, Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 4:20-cv-555-DCB (D. Ariz. Dec. 23,
`2020).
`6 Order, Am. Soybean Ass’n v. Wheeler, No. 1:20-cv-3190-RCL, Dkt. No. 37 (D.D.C. Feb. 5,
`2021); Order, Am. Soybean Ass’n v. Wheeler, 20-1441 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 8, 2021); Order, Ctr. For
`Biological Diversity v. EPA, 4:20-cv-555-DCB (D. Ariz. Feb. 8, 2021).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 39 Filed 04/06/21 Page 5 of 17
`
`STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
`
`A.
`
`21.
`
`The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”)
`
`The first sentence of Paragraph 21 states a conclusion of law, to which no
`
`response is required. BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`B.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`Paragraph 22 states a conclusion of law, to which no response is required.
`
`Paragraph 23 states a conclusion of law, to which no response is required.
`
`Paragraph 24 states a conclusion of law, to which no response is required.
`
`Paragraph 25 states a conclusion of law, to which no response is required.
`
`The Endangered Species Act (“ESA”)
`
`Paragraph 26 states a conclusion of law, to which no response is required.
`
`Paragraph 27 states a conclusion of law, to which no response is required.
`
`Paragraph 28 states a conclusion of law, to which no response is required.
`
`Paragraph 29 states a conclusion of law, to which no response is required.
`
`Paragraph 30 states a conclusion of law, to which no response is required.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Admitted.
`
`BASF admits that the Dicamba Memorandum and registrations are supported by
`
`additional EPA analyses and documents, and denies that these unspecified documents together
`
`with the Dicamba Memorandum and the individual registrations constitute a single “Dicamba
`
`Decision.”
`
`33.
`
`BASF admits that soybean and cotton are important crops for US agriculture, and
`
`that dicamba is a critical tool in Growers’ fight against herbicide-resistant weeds.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 39 Filed 04/06/21 Page 6 of 17
`
`34.
`
`BASF admits that the dicamba registrations at issue provide an essential weed-
`
`management tool for the 2021 growing season and beyond, and denies the remainder of the
`
`allegations.
`
`35.
`
`BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 35.
`
`A.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`B.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`U.S. Soybean
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`U.S. Cotton
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 39 Filed 04/06/21 Page 7 of 17
`
`C.
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`The Rise of Herbicide-Resistant Weeds and Growers’ Answer: Dicamba
`
`Admitted.
`
`Growers’ Fight Against Weeds
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`The Emergence of Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`BASF admits that farmers, and their down-market customers, reaped significant
`
`productivity, reliability and economic gains from the development of GT crops.
`
`61.
`
`62.
`
`63.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`The Emergence of Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds
`
`64.
`
`BASF admits that glyphosate-resistant weeds have emerged and that they pose
`
`serious challenges to soybean and cotton growers.
`
`65.
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`BASF admits that glyphosate-resistant weeds require growers to pursue
`
`alternative measures for weed control, including aggressive tillage and application of additional
`
`herbicides. BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the third sentence in Paragraph 67.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 39 Filed 04/06/21 Page 8 of 17
`
`68.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Dicamba: Growers’ Answer to Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds
`
`69.
`
`70.
`
`71.
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted, except that dicamba was first registered for use as an herbicide decades
`
`ago and thus is a “new technology” only with respect to its development and approval for use
`
`over-the-top of DT soybean and cotton crops.
`
`74.
`
`BASF admits that growers started using dicamba products registered for use on
`
`DT soybean and cotton after the initial registrations were granted, and that growers benefitted
`
`from the use of those products.
`
`75.
`
`76.
`
`77.
`
`78.
`
`79.
`
`D.
`
`80.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`The Dicamba Decision and its Application Restrictions
`
`Admitted.
`
`EPA’s Latest Dicamba Registration
`
`81.
`
`BASF admits that EPA has granted or amended a number of different
`
`registrations for over-the-top application of dicamba since 2016, each involving different
`
`products, formulations, and use restrictions.
`
`82.
`
`Admitted.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 39 Filed 04/06/21 Page 9 of 17
`
`83.
`
`84.
`
`85.
`
`86.
`
`87.
`
`88.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`BASF admits that the Dicamba Decision includes date-dependent application
`
`restrictions, general application buffers, and application buffers specific to endangered species
`
`counties. BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 88 with respect to their impacts on yields, operational costs, and
`
`productivity.
`
`89.
`
`90.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted,
`
`The Application Restriction
`
`91.
`
`BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 91. The second and third sentences of Paragraph
`
`91 are admitted.
`
`92.
`
`93.
`
`Admitted.
`
`BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 93.
`
`94.
`
`BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 94.
`
`95.
`
`BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 95.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 39 Filed 04/06/21 Page 10 of 17
`
`96.
`
`BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 96.
`
`97.
`
`BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 97.
`
`98.
`
`BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 98.
`
`99.
`
`BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 99.
`
`100. BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 100.
`
`101. BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 101. BASF admits the allegations in the second
`
`sentence of Paragraph 101.
`
`The ESA and FIFRA Buffers
`
`102. BASF admits that the October 27, 2020 registrations required general application
`
`buffers and application buffers specific to endangered species counties.
`
`103. BASF admits that the October 27, 2020 registrations require a 310 foot in-field
`
`downwind application buffer and a 57-foot omni-directional buffer for use in counties identified
`
`as potentially inhabited by listed species, and a 240-foot general in-field downwind application
`
`buffer applicable elsewhere.
`
`104. BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 104.
`
`105. BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 105.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 39 Filed 04/06/21 Page 11 of 17
`
`106. BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 106.
`
`107. BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 107.
`
`108. BASF admits that the application buffers required by the October 27, 2020
`
`registrations are significantly larger than the buffers required by dicamba product registrations
`
`amended in 2018. BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 108.
`
`109. BASF admits that the general application buffers required by the October 27,
`
`2020 registrations are more than twice the size of the general application buffers required by the
`
`registrations amended in 2018 registrations. BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 109.
`
`110. BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 110.
`
`COUNT ONE
`Application Restrictions
`
`111. BASF incorporates by reference the answers to all preceding Paragraphs as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`112. Admitted.
`
`113. Admitted.
`
`114. BASF denies that the Application Restrictions exceed EPA’s authority. BASF
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations in paragraph 114.
`
`115. Denied.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 39 Filed 04/06/21 Page 12 of 17
`
`116. BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 116.
`
`117. BASF denies that Plaintiffs are entitled by law to the relief requested in Paragraph
`
`117.
`
`COUNT TWO
`ESA Buffers
`
`118. BASF incorporates by reference the answers to all preceding Paragraphs as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`119. Admitted.
`
`120. Admitted.
`
`121. BASF denies that the ESA Buffers exceed EPA’s authority. BASF lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`in paragraph 121.
`
`122. Denied.
`
`123. BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 123.
`
`124. BASF denies that Plaintiffs are entitled by law to the relief requested in Paragraph
`
`117.
`
`COUNT THREE
`FIFRA Buffers
`
`125. BASF incorporates by reference the answers to all preceding Paragraphs as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`126. Admitted.
`
`127. Admitted.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 39 Filed 04/06/21 Page 13 of 17
`
`128. BASF denies that the FIFRA Buffers exceed EPA’s authority. BASF lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`in paragraph 128.
`
`129. Denied.
`
`130. BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 130.
`
`131. BASF denies that Plaintiffs are entitled by law to the relief requested in Paragraph
`
`131.
`
`COUNT FOUR
`ESA Determinations
`
`132. BASF incorporates by reference the answers to all preceding Paragraphs as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`133. Admitted.
`
`134. Admitted.
`
`135. Admitted.
`
`136. Admitted.
`
`137. Admitted.
`
`138. BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 138.
`
`139. BASF does not oppose Plaintiffs’ request for an order declaring the No Effects
`
`Determinations and NLAA Determinations legally valid under the APA, FIFRA, and the ESA.
`
`BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a position with respect to Plaintiffs’
`
`requests for attorneys’ fees and costs and any other appropriate relief.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 39 Filed 04/06/21 Page 14 of 17
`
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`A.
`
`BASF denies that Plaintiffs are entitled by law to the declaratory relief requested
`
`in Paragraph A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`BASF does not oppose Plaintiffs request for declaratory relief in Paragraph B.
`
`BASF denies that Plaintiffs are entitled by law to an order requiring action
`
`consistent with the declarations requested in Paragraph A. BASF does not oppose an order
`
`requiring further action, if any, required by and consistent with the declarations requested in
`
`Paragraph B.
`
`D.
`
`BASF denies that Plaintiffs are entitled by law to an order remanding the October
`
`27, 2020 registration orders for further action consistent with the Court’s order and declarations.
`
`E.
`
`BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a position with respect
`
`to Plaintiffs’ requests for costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
`
`F.
`
`BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a position with respect
`
`to Plaintiffs’ requests for other relief that the Court considers just and proper.
`
`GENERAL DENIAL
`
`BASF denies each and every allegation in Plaintiffs’ Complaint not specifically admitted
`
`herein.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`First Defense
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the statute of limitations.
`
`Second Defense
`
`Some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe for review.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 39 Filed 04/06/21 Page 15 of 17
`
`Third Defense
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part for failure to exhaust administrative
`
`remedies.
`
`Fourth Defense
`
`Some or all of the claims are not reviewable due to the lack of final agency action.
`
`Fifth Defense
`
`The relief sought by Plaintiffs is barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of primary
`
`jurisdiction.
`
`Sixth Defense
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of waiver.
`
`Seventh Defense
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part under the doctrine of harmless error. See
`
`5 U.S.C. § 706.
`
`Eighth Defense
`
`The relief sought by Plaintiffs is barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of laches.
`
`Ninth Defense
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part because they are moot.
`
`Tenth Defense
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by res judicata (claim preclusion).
`
`Eleventh Defense
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by collateral estoppel (issue preclusion).
`
`RESERVATION
`
`Defendant-Intervenor reserves the right to add further defenses as may be developed
`
`during litigation.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 39 Filed 04/06/21 Page 16 of 17
`
`Date: April 6, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ David A. Barker__________________________
`John C. Cruden (D.C. Bar No. 261321)
`Kathryn E. Szmuszkovicz (D.C. Bar No. 388735)
`Anthony L. Michaels (D.C. Bar No. 458510)
`David A. Barker (D.C. Bar No. 486283)
`BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C.
`1900 N Street, N.W., Suite 100
`Washington, D.C. 20036-1656
`T: (202) 789-6000 F: (202) 789-6190
`jcruden@bdlaw.com
`kes@bdlaw.com
`alm@bdlaw.com
`dab@bdlaw.com
`
`John Wellschlager, admitted pro hac vice
`DLA PIPER LLP
`The Marbury Building
`6225 Smith Avenue
`Baltimore, Maryland 21209-3600
`T: (410) 580-3000 F: (410) 580-3001
`john.wellschlager@dlapiper.com
`
`Angela C. Agrusa, admitted pro hac vice
`DLA PIPER LLP
`2000 Avenue of the Stars
`Suite 400 North Tower
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4704
`T: (310) 595-3000 F: (310) 5959-3300
`angela.agrusa@dlapiper.com
`
`Matt Holian, admitted pro hac vice
`DLA PIPER LLP
`33 Arch Street, 26th Floor
`Boston, Massachusetts 02110-1447
`T: (617) 406-6000 F: (617) 406-6100
`matt.holian@dlapiper.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor
`BASF Corporation
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 39 Filed 04/06/21 Page 17 of 17
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that on April 6, 2021, a copy of the foregoing was served by electronic means on
`
`all counsel of record by the Court’s CM/ECF system.
`
`/s/ David A. Barker
`
`17
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket