Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 56 Filed 05/11/21 Page 1 of 18
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`__________________________________________
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-03190 (RCL)
`
`)
`
`))
`
`))
`
`))
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`))
`
`))
`
`AMERICAN SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION
`
`and
`
`PLAINS COTTON GROWERS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`MICHAEL S. REGAN, et al.,
`
`Defendants,
`
`
`
`and
`
`SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, et al., )
`)
`)
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`__________________________________________)
`
`ANSWER OF INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC
`TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Intervenor-Defendant Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC (“Syngenta”) files this Answer to
`
`Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, filed April 27, 2021, ECF
`
`No. 50, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 and this Court’s Order of April 28, 2021,
`
`ECF No. 51. Any allegations not specifically admitted below are denied. Answering the
`
`numbered paragraphs of the Amended Complaint, Syngenta admits, denies, and avers as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Paragraph 1 contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of this lawsuit, to which no
`
`response is required.
`
`2.
`
`Syngenta admits the allegations in Paragraph 2.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`__________________________________________
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-03190 (RCL)
`
`)
`
`))
`
`))
`
`))
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`))
`
`))
`
`AMERICAN SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION
`
`and
`
`PLAINS COTTON GROWERS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`MICHAEL S. REGAN, et al.,
`
`Defendants,
`
`
`
`and
`
`SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, et al., )
`)
`)
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`__________________________________________)
`
`ANSWER OF INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC
`TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Intervenor-Defendant Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC (“Syngenta”) files this Answer to
`
`Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, filed April 27, 2021, ECF
`
`No. 50, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 and this Court’s Order of April 28, 2021,
`
`ECF No. 51. Any allegations not specifically admitted below are denied. Answering the
`
`numbered paragraphs of the Amended Complaint, Syngenta admits, denies, and avers as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Paragraph 1 contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of this lawsuit, to which no
`
`response is required.
`
`2.
`
`Syngenta admits the allegations in Paragraph 2.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 56 Filed 05/11/21 Page 2 of 18
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Syngenta admits the allegations in Paragraph 3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Syngenta admits the allegations in Paragraph 4.
`
`Syngenta admits the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 5. The second
`
`sentence of Paragraph 5 characterizes EPA’s decision to register dicamba for use on dicamba-
`
`tolerant soybeans and cotton, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content.
`
`6.
`
`Syngenta admits that EPA’s registration of its dicamba product, Tavium, provided
`
`growers with an essential weed-management tool. Syngenta lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 6.
`
`7.
`
`Paragraph 7 characterizes certain aspects of EPA’s registration decisions
`
`concerning dicamba, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their content.
`
`8.
`
`Paragraph 8 contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of this action, to which no
`
`response is required.
`
`PARTIES
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`Upon information and belief, Syngenta admits the allegations in Paragraph 9.
`
`Upon information and belief, Syngenta admits the allegations in the first sentence
`
`of Paragraph 10. Syngenta lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 10.
`
`11.
`
`Syngenta lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations in Paragraph 11.
`
`12.
`
`Upon information and belief, Syngenta admits the allegations in the first sentence
`
`of Paragraph 12. Syngenta lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 12.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 56 Filed 05/11/21 Page 3 of 18
`
`13.
`
`Syngenta admits that the EPA Administrator is the federal official responsible for
`
`pesticide registrations, including the decisions challenged here, and that Michael S. Regan was
`
`the EPA Administrator at the time the Amended Complaint was filed and is sued in his official
`
`capacity.
`
`14.
`
`Syngenta admits that Defendant Marietta Echeverria was Acting Division
`
`Director of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, Registration Division at the time the
`
`Amended Complaint was filed, in which position she approved and administered FIFRA
`
`registrations and reported to the EPA Administrator. Upon information and belief, Syngenta
`
`admits the remaining allegations in Paragraph 14.
`
`15.
`
`Syngenta admits the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 15. The
`
`remainder of Paragraph 15 states conclusions of law, to which no response is required.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`Admitted.
`
`Paragraph 17 states conclusions of law, to which no response is required.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Syngenta admits that relevant events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`this District. The remainder of Paragraph 19 states conclusions of law, to which no response is
`
`required.
`
`STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
`
`A.
`
`The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”)
`
`20.
`
`The first sentence of Paragraph 20 characterizes FIFRA, which speaks for itself
`
`and is the best evidence of its content. The second sentence of Paragraph 20 characterizes a
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 56 Filed 05/11/21 Page 4 of 18
`
`Congressional Research Service report concerning pesticides, which speaks for itself and is the
`
`best evidence of its content.
`
`21.
`
`Paragraph 21 quotes from and characterizes FIFRA, which speaks for itself and is
`
`the best evidence of its content.
`
`22.
`
`Paragraph 22 quotes from and characterizes FIFRA, which speaks for itself and is
`
`the best evidence of its content.
`
`23.
`
`Paragraph 23 characterizes FIFRA, which speaks for itself and is the best
`
`evidence of its content.
`
`24.
`
`Paragraph 24 characterizes FIFRA, which speaks for itself and is the best
`
`evidence of its content.
`
`B.
`
`The Endangered Species Act (the “ESA”)
`
`25.
`
`Paragraph 25 quotes from and characterizes the ESA, which speaks for itself and
`
`is the best evidence of its content.
`
`26.
`
`Paragraph 26 quotes from and characterizes the ESA, which speaks for itself and
`
`is the best evidence of its content.
`
`27.
`
`Paragraph 27 quotes from and characterizes the ESA, which speaks for itself and
`
`is the best evidence of its content.
`
`28.
`
`Paragraph 28 quotes from and characterizes the ESA, which speaks for itself and
`
`is the best evidence of its content.
`
`29.
`
`Paragraph 29 quotes from and characterizes the ESA, which speaks for itself and
`
`is the best evidence of its content.
`
`30.
`
`Paragraph 30 quotes from and characterizes the ESA, which speaks for itself and
`
`is the best evidence of its content.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 56 Filed 05/11/21 Page 5 of 18
`
`31.
`
`Paragraph 31 quotes from and characterizes case law and the ESA, which speak
`
`for themselves and are the best evidence of their content.
`
`32.
`
`Paragraph 32 quotes from and characterizes case law and the ESA, which speak
`
`for themselves and are the best evidence of their content.
`
`C.
`
`The Administrative Procedure Act
`
`33.
`
`Paragraph 33 quotes from and characterizes the APA, which speaks for itself and
`
`is the best evidence of its content.
`
`34.
`
`Paragraph 34 quotes from and characterizes the APA, which speaks for itself and
`
`is the best evidence of its content.
`
`35.
`
`Paragraph 35 quotes from and characterizes the APA, which speaks for itself and
`
`is the best evidence of its content.
`
`36.
`
`Paragraph 36 quotes from and characterizes case law and the APA, which speak
`
`for themselves and are the best evidence of their content.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`37.
`
`Paragraph 37 contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of the lawsuit, to which no
`
`response is required. Paragraph 37 also characterizes and summarizes EPA’s Memorandum
`
`Supporting Decision to Approve Registration for the Uses of Dicamba on Dicamba Tolerance
`
`Cotton and Soybean (the “Dicamba Memorandum”), which speaks for itself and is the best
`
`evidence of its content.
`
`38.
`
`Paragraph 38 characterizes and summarizes the Dicamba Memorandum and
`
`supporting EPA analyses (referred to collectively as “the Dicamba Decision”), which speak for
`
`themselves and are the best evidence of their content.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 56 Filed 05/11/21 Page 6 of 18
`
`39.
`
`The first sentence of Paragraph 39 contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of the U.S.
`
`agricultural sector, to which no response is required. Syngenta admits that Tavium is an essential
`
`weed-management tool. Syngenta lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
`
`to the truth of the remaining allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 39.
`
`40.
`
`Syngenta admits that EPA’s registration of Tavium provided growers with an
`
`essential weed-management tool. Syngenta lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 40.
`
`41.
`
`Paragraph 41 contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of the lawsuit, to which no
`
`response is required.
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Soybean
`
`42.
`
`Syngenta admits that soybeans are an important agricultural product and have
`
`numerous uses as an ingredient and as feed and fuel. Syngenta lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 42.
`
`43.
`
`Paragraph 43 characterizes a USDA environmental impact statement for dicamba-
`
`resistant soybean and cotton varieties (“Soybean FEIS”) and a United Soybean Board issue brief,
`
`which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their content.
`
`44.
`
`The first sentence of Paragraph 44 contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of the U.S.
`
`agricultural economy, to which no response is required. The second sentence of Paragraph 44
`
`characterizes an ASA SoyStats document, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its
`
`content.
`
`45.
`
`The first sentence of Paragraph 45 contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of the U.S.
`
`farm economy, to which no response is required. The second sentence of Paragraph 45
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 56 Filed 05/11/21 Page 7 of 18
`
`characterizes a USDA Economic Research Service report, which speaks for itself and is the best
`
`evidence of its content.
`
`46.
`
`The first sentence of Paragraph 46 contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of the
`
`global agricultural market, to which no response is required. The second and third sentences of
`
`Paragraph 46 characterize a USDA Economic Research Service report and ASA SoyStats
`
`document, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their content.
`
`47.
`
`Syngenta admits that soybeans are an important agricultural product but otherwise
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations in the first sentence in Paragraph 47. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 47
`
`characterize a USAID Soybeans Commodity Fact Sheet, which speaks for itself and is the best
`
`evidence of its content.
`
`48.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 48 characterize a USAID Soybeans Commodity Fact
`
`Sheet, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content.
`
`49.
`
`The first sentence of Paragraph 49 contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of the
`
`domestic and international food chain, to which no response is required. Syngenta lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`in Paragraph 49.
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Cotton
`
`50.
`
`Syngenta admits that cotton is an important cash crop. The remaining allegations
`
`in the first sentence of Paragraph 50 contain Plaintiffs’ characterization of the domestic and
`
`global textile trade, to which no response is required. The second sentence of Paragraph 50
`
`characterizes a USDA Economic Research Service report, which speaks for itself and is the best
`
`evidence of its content.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 56 Filed 05/11/21 Page 8 of 18
`
`51.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 51 characterize a USDA Economic Research Service
`
`Report and National Cotton Council (“NCC”) World of Cotton document, which speak for
`
`themselves and are the best evidence of their content.
`
`52.
`
`Syngenta admits that cotton is an important agricultural product in Texas but
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 52.
`
`53.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 53 characterize a NCC World of Cotton document
`
`and 2018 NCC Report to Members Summary, which speak for themselves and are the best
`
`evidence of their content.
`
`54.
`
`Syngenta admits that the United States is an important cotton producer and
`
`exporter, but lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 54. The second sentence in Paragraph 54
`
`characterizes a USAID Soybeans Commodity Sheet, which speaks for itself and is the best
`
`evidence of its content.
`
`55.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 55 characterize USDA Economic Research Service
`
`reports, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their content.
`
`56.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 56 characterize a USDA Economic Research Service
`
`report, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content.
`
`57.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 57 characterize a USDA Economic Research Service
`
`report, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content.
`
`58.
`
`Syngenta admits that DT seed and dicamba are important tools for cotton farmers
`
`but lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 58.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 56 Filed 05/11/21 Page 9 of 18
`
`C.
`
`The Rise of Herbicide-Resistant Weeds and Growers’ Answer: Dicamba
`
`59.
`
`The first sentence of Paragraph 59 contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of the
`
`American farm economy, to which no response is required. The remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 59 characterize an ASA SoyStats document and USDA Foreign Agricultural Service
`
`report, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their content.
`
`i.
`
`Growers’ Fight Against Weeds
`
`60.
`
`Syngenta admits that soybean and cotton farmers face numerous threats during
`
`the growing season, including each of the threats identified in Paragraph 60. Syngenta lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`in Paragraph 60.
`
`61.
`
`Syngenta admits that weeds are among the threats soybean and cotton farmers
`
`face, but lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 61. The remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 61 characterize the Soybean FEIS, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of
`
`its content.
`
`62.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 62 characterize the Soybean FEIS and a Weed
`
`Science Society of America report, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their
`
`content.
`
`63.
`
`Syngenta admits that weeds pose a threat to cotton farmers, but lacks knowledge
`
`or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in the first
`
`sentence of Paragraph 63. The second sentence of Paragraph 63 characterizes an NCC letter to
`
`EPA (“NCC Letter”), which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 56 Filed 05/11/21 Page 10 of 18
`
`ii.
`
`The Emergence of Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds
`
`64.
`
`The allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 64 contain Plaintiffs’
`
`characterization of the impact of GT crops to which no response is required. Syngenta admits the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 64.
`
`65.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 65 contain Plaintiffs’ characterization of the impact
`
`of GT crops to which no response is required.
`
`66.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 66 contain Plaintiffs’ characterization of the impact
`
`of GT crops to which no response is required.
`
`67.
`
`The allegations in the first two sentences of Paragraph 67 characterize the NCC
`
`Letter and the Soybean FEIS, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their
`
`content. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 67 contain Plaintiffs’ characterization of the
`
`impact of GT crops to which no response is required.
`
`68.
`
`The allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 68 contain Plaintiffs’
`
`characterization of the impact of GT crops to which no response is required. The allegations in
`
`the second and third sentences of Paragraph 68 characterize a Keystone Alliance for Sustainable
`
`Agriculture report, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content.
`
`69.
`
`The allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 69 contain Plaintiffs’
`
`characterization of investment in GT crops to which no response is required. The second
`
`sentence of Paragraph 69 characterizes a USDA Economic Research Service report, which
`
`speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content.
`
`iii.
`
`The Emergence of Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds
`
`70.
`
`Syngenta admits the allegations in Paragraph 70.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 56 Filed 05/11/21 Page 11 of 18
`
`71.
`
`Syngenta admits that glyphosate-resistant weeds are increasingly widespread.
`
`The remaining allegations in Paragraph 71 characterize the Soybean FEIS, which speaks for
`
`itself and is the best evidence of its content.
`
`72.
`
`The allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 72 contain Plaintiffs’
`
`characterization of the impacts of glyphosate-resistant weeds to which no response is required.
`
`The remaining allegations in Paragraph 72 characterize CropLife reports, which speak for
`
`themselves and are the best evidence of their content.
`
`73.
`
`Syngenta admits that glyphosate-resistant weeds can impose significant costs on
`
`growers. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 73 characterize the Soybean FEIS, which
`
`speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content.
`
`74.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 74 characterize the Soybean FEIS, which speaks for
`
`itself and is the best evidence of its content.
`
`iv.
`
`Dicamba: Growers’ Answer to Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds
`
`75.
`
`Syngenta admits that Tavium was developed to address glyphosate-resistant
`
`weeds. Syngenta lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 75.
`
`76.
`
`Paragraph 76 contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of this action, to which no
`
`response is required.
`
`77.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 77 contain Plaintiffs’ characterization of Tavium and
`
`the other Dicamba Products’ use and efficacy, to which no response is required.
`
`78.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 78 contain Plaintiffs’ characterization of Tavium and
`
`the other Dicamba Products’ use, efficacy, and benefits to which no response is required.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 56 Filed 05/11/21 Page 12 of 18
`
`79.
`
`The allegations in the first and third sentence of Paragraph 79 contain Plaintiffs’
`
`characterization of the Dicamba Products to which no response is required. The remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 79 characterize the Soybean FEIS, which speaks for itself and is the best
`
`evidence of its content.
`
`80.
`
`Syngenta lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 80.
`
`81.
`
`82.
`
`83.
`
`84.
`
`85.
`
`Syngenta admits the allegations in Paragraph 81.
`
`Upon information and belief, Syngenta admits the allegations in Paragraph 82.
`
`Upon information and belief, Syngenta admits the allegations in Paragraph 83.
`
`Syngenta admits the allegations in Paragraph 84.
`
`Syngenta admits the allegations in Paragraph 85.
`
`D.
`
`The Dicamba Decision, the Application Restrictions, and the Spray Buffers
`
`86.
`
`Syngenta admits that EPA registered the Dicamba Products on October 27, 2020,
`
`through the Dicamba Decision, but lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
`
`to the truth of the remaining allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 86. The remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 86 characterize the Dicamba Memorandum, which is the best evidence
`
`of its content.
`
`i.
`
`EPA’s Latest Dicamba Registration
`
`87.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 87 characterize the Dicamba Memorandum and past
`
`dicamba registration decisions, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their
`
`content.
`
`88.
`
`Syngenta admits that the Dicamba Decision is comprised of the Dicamba
`
`Memorandum and supporting documents. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 88
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 56 Filed 05/11/21 Page 13 of 18
`
`characterize the Dicamba Memorandum, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its
`
`content.
`
`89.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 89 characterize additional dicamba registration
`
`decision documents, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their content.
`
`90.
`
`91.
`
`92.
`
`93.
`
`Syngenta admits the allegations in Paragraph 90.
`
`Syngenta admits the allegations in Paragraph 91.
`
`Upon information and belief, Syngenta admits the allegations in Paragraph 92.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 93 characterize and quote from various EPA
`
`assessments supporting the Dicamba Decision, which speak for themselves and are the best
`
`evidence of their content.
`
`94.
`
`Syngenta admits that the Dicamba Decision imposed conditions on growers,
`
`including date-dependent application restrictions (the “Application Restrictions”), and a suite of
`
`three application buffers (the “Spray Buffers”). Syngenta lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 94.
`
`95.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 95 characterize letters Plaintiffs submitted to EPA,
`
`which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their content.
`
`96.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 96 characterize EPA’s Dicamba Decision and past
`
`EPA decisions, which speaks for themselves and are the best evidence of their content.
`
`ii.
`
`The Application Restrictions
`
`97.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 97 characterize EPA’s Dicamba Decision, which
`
`speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content. Syngenta admits that EPA’s registration
`
`of dicamba contains new and additional restrictions that may result in some use limitations and
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 56 Filed 05/11/21 Page 14 of 18
`
`costs in certain circumstances, but lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
`
`to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 97.
`
`98.
`
`The first sentence of Paragraph 98 contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of certain
`
`dicamba label restrictions, to which no response is required. Syngenta admits that EPA’s
`
`registration of dicamba may, in certain circumstances, impact farm management flexibility, but
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 98.
`
`99.
`
`The first sentence of Paragraph 99 contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of the
`
`impacts of certain dicamba label restrictions, to which no response is required. Syngenta admits
`
`that cotton typically begins flowering 55-60 days after planting and that weed control during
`
`cultivation is important to cotton growers.
`
`100.
`
`Paragraph 100 contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of the impacts of certain
`
`dicamba label restrictions, to which no response is required.
`
`101.
`
`The first sentence of Paragraph 101 contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of the
`
`impacts of certain dicamba label restrictions, to which no response is required. Syngenta lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`in Paragraph 101.
`
`102.
`
`Paragraph 102 contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of the impacts of certain
`
`dicamba label restrictions, to which no response is required.
`
`103.
`
`Paragraph 103 contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of the impacts of certain
`
`dicamba label restrictions, to which no response is required.
`
`104.
`
`Paragraph 104 contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of the impacts of certain
`
`dicamba label restrictions, to which no response is required.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 56 Filed 05/11/21 Page 15 of 18
`
`105.
`
`Paragraph 105 contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of the impacts of certain
`
`dicamba label restrictions, to which no response is required.
`
`106.
`
`Paragraph 106 contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of the impacts of certain
`
`dicamba label restrictions, to which no response is required.
`
`107.
`
`The second sentence of Paragraph 107 characterizes and quotes from the Dicamba
`
`Memorandum, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content. The remainder of
`
`Paragraph 107 contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of the impacts of certain dicamba label
`
`restrictions, to which no response is required.
`
`iii.
`
`The Spray Buffers
`
`108.
`
`109.
`
`Syngenta admits the allegations in Paragraph 108.
`
`Paragraph 109 characterizes the Dicamba Memorandum, which speaks for itself
`
`and is the best evidence of its content.
`
`110.
`
`Syngenta lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations in Paragraph 110.
`
`111.
`
`Syngenta lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations in Paragraph 111.
`
`112.
`
`Syngenta lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations in Paragraph 112.
`
`113.
`
`The second sentence of Paragraph 113 characterizes an EPA Incidents and
`
`Impacts Report, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content. Syngenta lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`in Paragraph 113.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 56 Filed 05/11/21 Page 16 of 18
`
`114.
`
`The first two sentences of Paragraph 114 characterize the Dicamba Memorandum
`
`and past EPA decisions, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their content.
`
`Syngenta lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 114.
`
`115.
`
`Paragraph 115 characterizes the Dicamba Memorandum and an EPA Incidents and
`
`Impacts Report, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their content.
`
`116.
`
`The second sentence of Paragraph 116 characterizes and quotes from an EPA
`
`Incidents and Impacts Report, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content.
`
`Syngenta lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 116.
`
`COUNT ONE
`Application Restrictions
`
`117. No response to Paragraph 117 is necessary.
`
`118. Admitted.
`
`119. Admitted.
`
`120.
`
`Syngenta denies that the Application Restrictions exceed Defendants’ authority
`
`under FIFRA. Syngenta lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 120.
`
`121.
`
`122.
`
`123.
`
`Syngenta denies the allegations in Paragraph 121.
`
`Paragraph 122 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required.
`
`Paragraph 123 specifies the relief Plaintiffs seek, which requires no response.
`
`COUNT TWO
`Spray Buffers
`
`124. No response to Paragraph 124 is necessary.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 56 Filed 05/11/21 Page 17 of 18
`
`125. Admitted.
`
`126. Admitted.
`
`127.
`
`Syngenta denies that the Spray Buffers exceed Defendants’ authority under
`
`FIFRA. Syngenta lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the remaining allegations in Paragraph 120.
`
`128.
`
`129.
`
`130.
`
`131.
`
`Syngenta denies the allegations in Paragraph 128.
`
`Syngenta denies the allegations in Paragraph 129.
`
`Paragraph 130 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required.
`
`Paragraph 131 specifies the relief Plaintiffs seek, which requires no response.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Paragraphs A–E consist of Plaintiffs’ Prayer for Relief, to which no response is required.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims.
`
`Some or all of Plaintiffs lack standing to raise some or all of the claims in the
`
`Amended Complaint.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
`
`Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`Some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because EPA complied with all
`
`pertinent statutes and regulations in issuing its Dicamba Decision.
`
`Some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe for review.
`
`Some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims are not reviewable for lack of final agency action.
`
`Some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred for failure to exhaust administrative
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`remedies.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 56 Filed 05/11/21 Page 18 of 18
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`U.S.C. § 706.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`Some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of waiver.
`
`Some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of harmless error. 5
`
`Some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of laches.
`
`Some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of prudential standing.
`
`RESERVATION
`
`Syngenta reserves the right to add any additional affirmative defenses as may be
`
`developed during litigation.
`
`DATED: May 11, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Karen Ellis Carr
`Karen Ellis Carr (DC Bar # 975480)
`Donald C. McLean (DC Bar # 412268)
`Katie 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 Intervenor-Defendant
`Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC
`
`18
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
