Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 54 Filed 05/11/21 Page 1 of 17
`
`AMERICAN SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION
`and PLAINS COTTON GROWERS,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-03190 (RCL)
`
`
`MICHAEL S. REGAN,
`MARIETTA ECHEVERRIA, and
`UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
`PROTECTION AGENCY,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants,
`
`
`
`and
`
`BASF CORPORATION,
`BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, and
`SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC
`
`
`Defendant-Intervenors.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT- INTERVENOR BASF CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant-Intervenor
`
`BASF Corporation submits this Answer to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint for Declaratory and
`
`Injunctive Relief, Dkt. No. 50.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 54 Filed 05/11/21 Page 2 of 17
`
`3.
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`dicamba-tolerant (“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.
`
`PARTIES
`
`9.
`
`BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 9, which concern the interests and actions of Plaintiffs.
`
`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.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 54 Filed 05/11/21 Page 3 of 17
`
`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.
`
`13.
`
`Admitted.
`
`14.
`
`Admitted.
`
`15.
`
`Admitted.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`16.
`
`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 (together, the “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).1 The National Family Farm Coalition,
`
`Center for Food Safety, Center for Biological Diversity, and Pesticide Action Network North
`
`America (the “NGOs”) filed a petition for review in the Ninth Circuit on December 21, 2020
`
`seeking to have the October 27, 2020 registrations found unlawful and vacated.2 By Order of the
`
`
`1 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).
`2 See Petition for Review, National Family Farm Coalition v. EPA, 20-73750 (9th Cir. Dec. 21,
`2020).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 54 Filed 05/11/21 Page 4 of 17
`
`Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, those petitions have all been transferred to and
`
`consolidated in the D.C. Circuit.3 On December 23, 2020, the NGOs 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.4 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, 2021.5 In the D.C. Circuit, the registrants and Growers moved to stay the
`
`consolidated petitions while this action proceeds and Federal Defendants moved to dismiss the
`
`petitions on grounds that there is no jurisdiction in the courts of appeals under 7 U.S.C.
`
`§ 136n(b) due to the lack of a “public hearing” on the October 27, 2020 registration orders.6 The
`
`NGOs, without stating a position on the jurisdictional question, moved to transfer the
`
`consolidated petitions back to the Ninth Circuit.7 The NGOs filed an amended complaint in the
`
`Arizona action on May 3, 2021.8
`
`17.
`
`Paragraph 17 states conclusions of law, to which no response is required.
`
`
`3 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 Coal. v. EPA, 20-73750 (9th Cir. Jan. 26,
`2021).
`4 See Complaint, Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 4:20-cv-555-DCB, Dkt. No. 1 (D. Ariz.
`Dec. 23, 2020).
`5 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).
`6 BASF, Bayer, and Syngenta Mot. to Govern Further Proceedings, Am. Soybean Ass’n v.
`Wheeler, 20-1441 (D.C. Cir. April 22, 2021); Id., Growers’ Mot. to Govern Further Proceedings
`(April 23, 2021); Id., Federal Defendants’ Mot. to Dismiss (Apr. 23, 2021).
`7 Id., NGOs’ Mot. to Transfer Case (Apr. 22, 2021).
`8 Amended Complaint, Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. EPA, 4:20-cv-555-DCB, Dkt. No. 25 (D.
`Ariz. May 3, 2021).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 54 Filed 05/11/21 Page 5 of 17
`
`18.
`
`BASF admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Administrator Regan,
`
`Acting Division Director Echeverria, and EPA.
`
`19.
`
`BASF admits that venue is proper in this District.
`
`STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
`
`
`
`The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”)
`
`20.
`
`The first sentence of Paragraph 20 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 20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`Paragraph 21 states a conclusion of law, to which no response is required.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`The Endangered Species Act (“ESA”)
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`Paragraph 25 states a conclusion of law, to which no response is required.
`
`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.
`
`Paragraph 31 states a conclusion of law, to which no response is required.
`
`Paragraph 32 states a conclusion of law, to which no response is required.
`
`
`
`The Administrative Procedure Act
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`Paragraph 33 states a conclusion of law, to which no response is required.
`
`Paragraph 34 states a conclusion of law, to which no response is required.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 54 Filed 05/11/21 Page 6 of 17
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`Paragraph 35 states a conclusion of law, to which no response is required.
`
`Paragraph 36 states a conclusion of law, to which no response is required.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`37.
`
`Admitted.
`
`38.
`
`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.”
`
`39.
`
`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.
`
`40.
`
`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.
`
`41.
`
`BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 41.
`
`
`
`U.S. Soybean
`
`42.
`
`Admitted.
`
`43.
`
`Admitted.
`
`44.
`
`Admitted.
`
`45.
`
`Admitted.
`
`46.
`
`Admitted.
`
`47.
`
`Admitted.
`
`48.
`
`Admitted.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 54 Filed 05/11/21 Page 7 of 17
`
`49.
`
`Admitted.
`
`
`
`U.S. Cotton
`
`50.
`
`Admitted.
`
`51.
`
`Admitted.
`
`52.
`
`Admitted.
`
`53.
`
`Admitted.
`
`54.
`
`Admitted.
`
`55.
`
`Admitted.
`
`56.
`
`Admitted.
`
`57.
`
`Admitted.
`
`58.
`
`Admitted.
`
`
`
`The Rise of Herbicide-Resistant Weeds and Growers’ Answer: Dicamba
`
`59.
`
`Admitted.
`
`
`
`Growers’ Fight Against Weeds
`
`60.
`
`Admitted.
`
`61.
`
`Admitted.
`
`62.
`
`Admitted.
`
`63.
`
`Admitted.
`
`
`
`The Emergence of Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds
`
`64.
`
`Admitted.
`
`65.
`
`Admitted.
`
`66.
`
`BASF admits that farmers, and their down-market customers, reaped significant
`
`productivity, reliability and economic gains from the development of GT crops.
`
`67.
`
`Admitted.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 54 Filed 05/11/21 Page 8 of 17
`
`68.
`
`Admitted.
`
`69.
`
`Admitted.
`
`
`
`The Emergence of Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds
`
`70.
`
`BASF admits that glyphosate-resistant weeds have emerged and that they pose
`
`serious challenges to soybean and cotton growers.
`
`71.
`
`Admitted.
`
`72.
`
`Admitted.
`
`73.
`
`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 73.
`
`74.
`
`Admitted.
`
`
`
`Dicamba: Growers’ Answer to Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds
`
`75.
`
`Admitted.
`
`76.
`
`Admitted.
`
`77.
`
`Admitted.
`
`78.
`
`Admitted.
`
`79.
`
`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.
`
`80.
`
`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.
`
`81.
`
`Admitted.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 54 Filed 05/11/21 Page 9 of 17
`
`82.
`
`Admitted.
`
`83.
`
`Admitted.
`
`84.
`
`Admitted.
`
`85.
`
`Admitted.
`
`
`
`The Dicamba Decision and its Application Restrictions
`
`86.
`
`Admitted.
`
`
`
`EPA’s Latest Dicamba Registration
`
`87.
`
`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.
`
`88.
`
`Admitted.
`
`89.
`
`Admitted.
`
`90.
`
`Admitted.
`
`91.
`
`Admitted.
`
`92.
`
`Admitted.
`
`93.
`
`Admitted.
`
`94.
`
`BASF admits that the Dicamba Decision includes date-dependent application
`
`restrictions and application buffers. BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 94 with respect to their impacts on yields,
`
`operational costs, and productivity.
`
`95.
`
`Admitted.
`
`96.
`
`Admitted,
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 54 Filed 05/11/21 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`The Application Restrictions
`
`97.
`
`BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 97. The second and third sentences of Paragraph
`
`97 are admitted.
`
`98.
`
`Admitted.
`
`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 Paragraph 101.
`
`102. BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 102.
`
`103. BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 103.
`
`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.
`
`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 the first sentence of Paragraph 107. BASF admits the allegations in the second
`
`sentence of Paragraph 107.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 54 Filed 05/11/21 Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`The Spray Buffers
`
`108. BASF admits that the October 27, 2020 registrations imposed three requirements
`
`for spray application buffers
`
`109. BASF admits that the October 27, 2020 registrations generally require a 240-foot
`
`in-field downwind application buffer as well as 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.
`
`110. BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 110.
`
`111. BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 111.
`
`112. BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 112.
`
`113. BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 113.
`
`114. 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 114.
`
`115. 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 115.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 54 Filed 05/11/21 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.
`
`COUNT ONE
`Application Restrictions
`
`117. BASF incorporates by reference the answers to all preceding Paragraphs as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`118. Admitted.
`
`119. Admitted.
`
`120. 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 120.
`
`121. Denied.
`
`122. BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 122.
`
`123. BASF denies that Plaintiffs are entitled by law to the relief requested in Paragraph
`
`123.
`
`COUNT TWO
`Spray Buffers
`
`124. BASF incorporates by reference the answers to all preceding Paragraphs as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`125. Admitted.
`
`126. Admitted.
`
`127. BASF denies that the Spray 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 127.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 54 Filed 05/11/21 Page 13 of 17
`
`128. Denied.
`
`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.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`A.
`
` BASF denies that Plaintiffs are entitled by law to the declaratory relief requested
`
`in Paragraph A.
`
`B.
`
`BASF denies that Plaintiffs are entitled by law to an order requiring action
`
`consistent with the declarations requested in Paragraph A.
`
`C.
`
`BASF denies that Plaintiffs are entitled by law to an order remanding the October
`
`27, 2020 registration orders for further action consistent with the requested Court order and
`
`declarations.
`
`D.
`
`BASF lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a position with respect
`
`to Plaintiffs’ requests for costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
`
`E.
`
`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.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 54 Filed 05/11/21 Page 14 of 17
`
`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.
`
`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).
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 54 Filed 05/11/21 Page 15 of 17
`
`Eleventh Defense
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by collateral estoppel (issue preclusion).
`
`
`
`Defendant-Intervenor BASF reserves the right to add further defenses as may be
`
`RESERVATION
`
`developed during litigation.
`
`
`
`Date: May 11, 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
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 54 Filed 05/11/21 Page 16 of 17
`
`
`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 54 Filed 05/11/21 Page 17 of 17
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that on May 11, 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
`
`