Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 7 Filed 11/11/20 Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`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.
`
`ANDREW R. WHEELER, MARIETTA
`ECHEVERRIA, and UNITED STATES
`ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
`AGENCY
`
` Defendants,
`
` and
`
`BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP
`
` Proposed
` Defendant-Intervenor.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION OF BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP
`TO INTERVENE AS A DEFENDANT
`
`Bayer CropScience LP (“Bayer”) respectfully moves to intervene as of right as a defendant
`
`in this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) or alternatively seeks permissive
`
`intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b)(1)(B). The points and authorities supporting this motion are
`
`set forth in Bayer’s attached memorandum of law. Bayer also seeks leave to file its Answer or
`
`other responsive pleading pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(c) and Local Civil Rule
`
`7(j) on the same date as Federal Defendants in this matter.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(m), counsel for Bayer has conferred with the parties
`
`regarding this motion. Counsel for Plaintiffs American Soybean Association and Plains Cotton
`
`Growers, Inc. and counsel for Defendants have indicated that Plaintiffs and Defendants do not
`
`oppose this motion to intervene.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 7 Filed 11/11/20 Page 2 of 23
`
`
`
`
`Date: November 11, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Philip J. Perry
`Philip J. Perry* (D.C. Bar No. 434278)
`Richard P. Bress (D.C. Bar No. 457504)
`Andrew D. Prins (D.C. Bar No. 998490)
`Stacey L. VanBelleghem (D.C. Bar No.
`988144)
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 11th Street NW, Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Tel: (202) 637-2200
`Fax: (202) 637-2201
`Email: philip.perry@lw.com
`*Counsel of Record
`
`Counsel for Bayer CropScience LP
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 7 Filed 11/11/20 Page 3 of 23
`
`
`
`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.
`
`ANDREW R. WHEELER, MARIETTA
`ECHEVERRIA, and UNITED STATES
`ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
`AGENCY
`
` Defendants,
`
` and
`
`BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP
`
` Proposed
` Defendant-Intervenor.
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED
`MOTION OF BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP TO INTERVENE AS A DEFENDANT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 7 Filed 11/11/20 Page 4 of 23
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................3
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................6
`
`I.
`
`BAYER IS ENTITLED TO INTERVENE AS OF RIGHT ................................................6
`
`A.
`
`Bayer Has Article III Standing ................................................................................6
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`This Motion Is Timely .............................................................................................8
`
`Bayer Has Protectable Interests at Issue ..................................................................9
`
`The Relief Sought Would Impair Bayer’s Ability to Protect Its Interests ...............9
`
`Bayer’s Interests Are Not Adequately Represented By the Existing Parties .........11
`
`II.
`
`ALTERNATIVELY, BAYER SHOULD BE GRANTED PERMISSIVE
`INTERVENTION ..............................................................................................................13
`
`III.
`
`RESPONSIVE PLEADING ..............................................................................................14
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 7 Filed 11/11/20 Page 5 of 23
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Am. Horse Prot. Ass’n v. Veneman,
`200 F.R.D. 153 (D.D.C. 2001) .................................................................................................11
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Hargan,
`285 F. Supp. 3d 397 (D.D.C. 2017) .........................................................................................11
`
`Astrazeneca Pharm. LP v. Burwell,
`No. 1:16-cv-01336-RDM (D.D.C. July 1, 2016) .....................................................................14
`
`Carpenters Indus. Council v. Zinke,
`854 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................................................7
`
`*Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies v. FEC,
`788 F.3d 312 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ......................................................................................... passim
`
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA,
`861 F.3d 174 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................................................5
`
`Dimond v. Dist. of Columbia,
`792 F.2d 179 (D.C. Cir. 1986) .................................................................................................12
`
`*EEOC v. Nat’l Children’s Ctr., Inc.,
`146 F.3d 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ...............................................................................................13
`
`*Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Norton,
`322 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2003) .................................................................................9, 10, 11, 12
`
`*Hardin v. Jackson,
`600 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C. 2009) ...................................................................................8, 9, 12
`
`Idaho Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Babbitt,
`58 F.3d 1392 (9th Cir. 1995) .....................................................................................................8
`
`Jones v. Prince George’s Cty., Md.,
`348 F.3d 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................9
`
`Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,
`504 U.S. 555 (1992) ...................................................................................................................7
`
`Mova Pharm. Corp. v. Shalala,
`140 F.3d 1060 (D.C. Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................8
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 7 Filed 11/11/20 Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`N.Y. Pub. Int. Rsch. Grp., Inc. v. Regents of Univ. of State of N.Y.,
`516 F.2d 350 (2d Cir. 1975).....................................................................................................11
`
`Nat’l Family Farm Coal. v. EPA,
`960 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................................5
`
`Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n v. EPA,
`759 F.3d 969 (8th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................11
`
`Nat’l Tr. for Historic Pres. v. Semonite,
`No. 1:17-cv-01574-RCL (D.D.C. Sept. 12, 2017) ...................................................................14
`
`Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA,
`99 F.R.D. 607 (D.D.C. 1983) ...............................................................................................7, 10
`
`Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Costle,
`561 F.2d 904 (D.C. Cir. 1977) ...........................................................................................12, 13
`
`Prometheus Labs., Inc. v. Burwell,
`No. 1:15-cv-00742-JEB (D.D.C. May 20, 2015) .....................................................................14
`
`Reckitt Benckiser Inc. v. EPA,
`613 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 2010) .............................................................................................3, 6
`
`Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran,
`333 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................................9
`
`Sierra Club v. EPA,
`292 F.3d 895 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ...............................................................................................6, 7
`
`Teva Pharm. Indus., Ltd. v. Sebelius,
`No. 1:14-cv-00786 (D.D.C. May 11, 2014) .............................................................................14
`
`Triax Co. v. TRW, Inc.,
`724 F.2d 1224 (6th Cir. 1984) ...................................................................................................8
`
`United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.,
`642 F.2d 1285 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ...............................................................................................11
`
`WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell,
`320 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2017) .......................................................................................................7
`
`WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar,
`272 F.R.D. 4 (D.D.C. 2010) .....................................................................................................13
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 7 Filed 11/11/20 Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`7 U.S.C.
`§ 136 et seq. ...............................................................................................................................1
`§ 136(t)-(u) .................................................................................................................................1
`§ 136a(a) ....................................................................................................................................7
`§ 136a(c) ....................................................................................................................................3
`§ 136e(a) ..................................................................................................................................10
`§ 136j(a)(2)(G) ...........................................................................................................................3
`§ 136l .........................................................................................................................................3
`§ 136n(b) ....................................................................................................................................5
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P.
`12..............................................................................................................................................15
`24............................................................................................................................................7, 9
`24(a)(2) ........................................................................................................................6, 8, 9, 10
`24(b)(1)(B) ...............................................................................................................................13
`24(c) .....................................................................................................................................3, 14
`
`Local Civil Rule 7(j) ..................................................................................................................3, 14
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`40 C.F.R. § 165.3 ...........................................................................................................................10
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Determination of Nonregulated Status of Herbicide Resistant Soybean and
`Cotton, 80 Fed. Reg. 2675 (Jan. 20, 2015) ................................................................................4
`
`EPA, Final Registration of Dicamba on Dicamba-Tolerant Cotton and Soybean,
`EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0187-0959 (Nov. 9, 2016) ........................................................................4
`
`EPA, Memorandum Supporting Decision to Approve Registration for the Uses of
`Dicamba on Dicamba Tolerant Cotton and Soybean 15, EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-
`0492-0007 (Oct. 27, 2020) ............................................................................................... passim
`
`EPA, Registration Decision for the Continuation of Uses of Dicamba on Dicamba
`Tolerant Cotton and Soybean, EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0187-0968 (Oct. 31, 2018) ......................4
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 7 Filed 11/11/20 Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), the U.S.
`
`Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has statutory responsibility for reviewing the safety
`
`and labeling of all agricultural herbicides to be sold and used in the United States. 7 U.S.C. § 136
`
`et seq.1 After conducting such a review, EPA registered Proposed Intervenor Bayer’s herbicide2
`
`XtendiMax™ with VaporGrip™ (“XtendiMax”) on October 27, 2020, along with two other low-
`
`volatility dicamba formulations manufactured by other companies. EPA registered all three
`
`products for use over cotton and soybean crops genetically engineered by Bayer to be tolerant to
`
`dicamba.
`
`Plaintiffs in this case are groups representing cotton growers in 42 counties in Texas and
`
`soybean growers nationally. Compl. ¶¶ 11-13. Plaintiffs acknowledge that the subject herbicides
`
`are critical to weed control in their farming operations, and do not seek to vacate Bayer’s
`
`XtendiMax registration or the other two registrations at issue here. Id. ¶ 76 (“Without Dicamba
`
`Products in their arsenal, many farms would be largely defenseless in their fight against weeds.”).
`
`Instead, Plaintiffs seek a ruling that certain specific safeguards required by EPA on Bayer’s (and
`
`the two other registrants’) labels are too restrictive, and thus unnecessary and inappropriate to meet
`
`the FIFRA statutory standard. Id. ¶¶ 88-110. Plaintiffs seek remand to EPA “for the limited
`
`purpose” of reconsidering these particular label restrictions, which they allege will “increase
`
`operational costs, and erode productivity.” Id. ¶ 88, Prayer for Relief ¶ D. Bayer is very
`
`sympathetic to Plaintiffs’ concerns; indeed, Bayer developed its specialized seed and dicamba
`
`
`
`1 FIFRA utilizes the term “pesticide” to refer to a wide range of products including herbicides
`and insecticides. EPA regulates agricultural herbicides along with many other crop protection,
`commercial and consumer products under FIFRA. 7 U.S.C. § 136(t)-(u).
`
`2 The Bayer Group has acquired Monsanto Company, the former registrant of XtendiMax.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 7 Filed 11/11/20 Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`herbicides specifically to serve soybean and cotton growers. But Bayer also understands that EPA
`
`mandated these specific restrictions as highly conservative protective measures. In order to make
`
`its critical herbicide product available this coming year, Bayer has adopted these restrictive
`
`measures, and is preparing its labeling, packaging and training materials for the product
`
`accordingly.
`
`Bayer has a direct and immediate interest in this matter, and satisfies every factor for
`
`intervention as of right under this Circuit’s precedents. One of the three EPA registrations
`
`challenged here was granted specifically for Bayer’s patented XtendiMax dicamba herbicide. And
`
`all three challenged EPA registrations were granted for use over crops grown from Bayer’s
`
`patented genetically engineered seed. Bayer has an unambiguous interest in defending the legality
`
`of its own line of products. Any changes to the Bayer label resulting from Plaintiffs’ claims would
`
`result in delays in distribution of Bayer’s product and other significant logistical challenges for
`
`Bayer along with accompanying costs, and could otherwise impact Bayer’s sales of its seed and
`
`herbicides. See infra Section I.A.; see, e.g., Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies v. FEC, 788
`
`F.3d 312, 316, 320 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (addressing factors for “intervention as of right”). Therefore,
`
`Bayer seeks to intervene as of right to defend EPA’s decision as consistent with applicable legal
`
`requirements and the extensive technical record before the agency.
`
`
`
`Alternatively, Bayer seeks permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b)(1)(B), and
`
`likewise also satisfies each of the criteria under that provision. See infra Section II (explaining
`
`that, “[o]n timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who … has a claim or defense
`
`that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact”). Finally, Bayer also seeks
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 7 Filed 11/11/20 Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`leave to file its Answer or other responsive pleading pursuant to Rule 24(c) and Local Civil Rule
`
`7(j) on the same date as Federal Defendants.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`“A FIFRA registration is a product-specific license describing the terms and conditions
`
`under which the product can be legally distributed, sold, and used.” Reckitt Benckiser Inc. v. EPA,
`
`613 F.3d 1131, 1133 (D.C. Cir. 2010). FIFRA requires that a pesticide product be registered by
`
`EPA before it may be sold or distributed in the United States. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c). And EPA may
`
`only register a pesticide if it determines, among other things, that the product “will perform its
`
`intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment,” which is defined to
`
`include “any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic,
`
`social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.” 7 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 136a(c)(5)(C), 136(bb). When EPA registers a pesticide, it approves a label that specifies the
`
`uses to which a product may be put and how it should be applied. FIFRA forbids anyone from
`
`using a registered “pesticide” (including herbicides, see supra note 1) in a way inconsistent with
`
`its EPA-approved labeling, and FIFRA imposes civil and criminal liability for such misuse. See
`
`id. §§ 136j(a)(2)(G), 136l.
`
`Dicamba herbicides control a wide variety of weeds and are particularly effective for
`
`certain weeds that have become resistant to other herbicides, such as glyphosate. Id. Over the
`
`past decade, soybean and cotton farmers have struggled to address the emergence of glyphosate-
`
`resistant weeds in many locations across the United States. See EPA, Memorandum Supporting
`
`Decision to Approve Registration for the Uses of Dicamba on Dicamba Tolerant Cotton and
`
`Soybean 15, EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0492-0007 (Oct. 27, 2020) (“2020 Registration”). It is
`
`undisputed that those resistant weeds can cause significant yield losses. Id.; Compl. ¶ 78
`
`(“Removing dicamba from Growers’ toolboxes not only leaves farmers dangerously exposed to
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 7 Filed 11/11/20 Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`dozens of weeds resistant to other herbicides, but also expedites the emergence of weeds resistant
`
`to those other products.”).
`
`Bayer spent many years developing and breeding specialized soybean and cotton seeds
`
`with multiple herbicide tolerances, including dicamba tolerance, and other key agronomic traits.
`
`In 2015, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) issued an order granting non-regulated
`
`status for Bayer’s genetically engineered soybean and cotton traits, commercially known as
`
`Roundup Ready 2 Xtend Soybeans (“Xtend Soybeans”) and Bollgard II Xtendflex Cotton
`
`(“Xtendflex Cotton”).3
`
`USDA’s order only permits the crops to be cultivated—it does not approve dicamba use
`
`over those crops. Therefore, over the period from 2016 to 2020, Bayer sought and was granted
`
`EPA registration for XtendiMax on three separate occasions, the first two times for limited two-
`
`year registration periods, and most recently for a five-year period. EPA, Final Registration of
`
`Dicamba on Dicamba-Tolerant Cotton and Soybean, EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0187-0959 (Nov. 9,
`
`2016); EPA, Registration Decision for the Continuation of Uses of Dicamba on Dicamba Tolerant
`
`Cotton and Soybean, EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0187-0968 (Oct. 31, 2018); 2020 Registration at 26. In
`
`multiple separate cases, plaintiff groups sued EPA, Bayer, and other dicamba registrants, alleging
`
`that the herbicides were volatilizing after application and moving off field, or drifting during
`
`application, and harming neighboring fields.4 The new dicamba registrations specifically took that
`
`
`
`3 See Determination of Nonregulated Status of Herbicide Resistant Soybean and Cotton, 80 Fed.
`Reg. 2675 (Jan. 20, 2015). Those actions have never been challenged. Thus, this case relates
`strictly to EPA’s latest decision to register the three low-volatility dicamba formulations for the
`specified uses over the top of tolerant soybean and cotton.
`
`4 See, e.g., Bader Farms, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., No. 1:16-CV-00299 (E.D. Mo.); Nat’l Family
`Farm Coal. v. EPA, 960 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2020) (vacating 2018 registration). Under FIFRA,
`certain EPA decisions issued “following a public hearing” are required to proceed directly in the
`U.S. Courts of Appeals. 7 U.S.C. § 136n(b). “Public notice and comment” can constitute a
`“hearing” for purposes of FIFRA. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 861 F.3d 174, 186 (D.C.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 7 Filed 11/11/20 Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`litigation history into account; EPA developed a voluminous new record and imposed significant
`
`new requirements for applicators, each designed to address the risk of volatility or drift.
`
`2020 Registration at 3-5. For example, XtendiMax applications can now only be made with a
`
`newly approved “Volatility Reduction Adjuvant” (VRA), which has been proven in dozens of on-
`
`field and other tests to successfully address volatility concerns. Id. at 4, 14. Likewise, EPA
`
`imposed significantly larger buffer distances to address drift, as well as application cut-off dates
`
`for both soybean and cotton growers. Id. at 4. EPA concluded that these and other measures
`
`would address allegations that previously arose with respect to differently labeled dicamba
`
`products, none of which mandated use of a VRA. Id. at 17 (“EPA approved a suite of control
`
`measures to ensure dicamba stays on the treated field, addressing offsite movement and therefore
`
`the likelihood of damage.”).
`
`Plaintiffs have long supported EPA’s decision to register dicamba herbicides, stressing
`
`how important the products are for effective weed control and for limiting potential future
`
`herbicide resistance. See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 78 (Without dicamba, farmers “will find themselves
`
`reliant on ever-fewer effective anti-weeding tools over time.”). Recognizing that the dicamba
`
`registration decisions “will arm Growers with an essential weed-management tool,” Plaintiffs do
`
`not now seek to vacate, i.e., set aside, the challenged registration decisions. Id. ¶¶ 6, 79, 117, 124,
`
`131. Instead, Plaintiffs ask this Court to remand the registrations to EPA “for the limited purpose”
`
`of reconsidering particular label restrictions; Plaintiffs allege that those specific restrictions are
`
`unnecessary and will “increase operational costs, and erode productivity.” Id. ¶ 88; Prayer for
`
`Relief ¶ D. Plaintiffs also broadly seek a declaratory judgment that the dicamba registrations
`
`
`Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). EPA did not issue any “public notice” seeking “comment” on the
`three dicamba registrations at issue here. 2020 Registration at 7 n.6.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 7 Filed 11/11/20 Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`comply with applicable law—even after the specific restrictions at issue are excised. Id. ¶¶ 114,
`
`121, 128, 132-39, Prayer for Relief ¶¶ A-B.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`BAYER IS ENTITLED TO INTERVENE AS OF RIGHT
`
`An applicant is entitled to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) if it satisfies five
`
`conditions. First, the applicant must demonstrate that it has Article III standing. See Crossroads,
`
`788 F.3d at 316. The Court then applies a four-factor test, requiring that: (1) the motion to
`
`intervene be timely; (2) the applicant claims a legally protected interest; (3) the action, as a
`
`practical matter, impairs or impedes that interest; and (4) the potential intervenor’s interest cannot
`
`adequately be represented by another party to the action. Id. at 320. Bayer satisfies those
`
`requirements.
`
`A.
`
`Bayer Has Article III Standing
`
`Bayer has standing to intervene as a defendant in this case. “The standing inquiry for an
`
`intervening-defendant is the same as for a plaintiff: the intervenor must show injury in fact,
`
`causation, and redressability.” Id. at 316; see also Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895, 898-99 (D.C.
`
`Cir. 2002).
`
`Bayer easily satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement at this early stage of this case. First,
`
`one of the three challenged EPA orders governs a registration owned by Bayer. That registration
`
`effectively constitutes a license to sell XtendiMax for a period of time. Reckitt Benckiser Inc.,
`
`613 F.3d at 1133. Under FIFRA, no pesticide (including herbicides) may be sold, or applied for a
`
`particular use, in the United States absent EPA registration. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(a). These types of
`
`licenses fall squarely within Rule 24’s protectable interests. See, e.g., WildEarth Guardians v.
`
`Jewell, 320 F.R.D. 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2017) (collecting cases); Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 99 F.R.D.
`
`607, 609 (D.D.C. 1983) (concluding even positive preliminary determinations prior to registration
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 7 Filed 11/11/20 Page 14 of 23
`
`
`
`of a pesticide constituted a protectable interest). The D.C. Circuit has made clear that where a
`
`party’s activity, product, permit or license “is ‘an object of the [agency] action (or forgone action)
`
`at issue’ . . . there should be ‘little question’” regarding the party’s standing. Sierra Club, 292 F.3d
`
`at 900 (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561-62 (1992)); see also Crossroads, 788
`
`F.3d at 317. In short, because this case directly addresses the legality of Bayer’s product, Bayer
`
`easily satisfies the injury-in fact requirement.
`
`Second, any changes to the XtendiMax label resulting from Plaintiffs’ claims would lead
`
`to a complicated series of efforts to re-label Bayer’s product, and thus delay distribution, impose
`
`immediate costs to Bayer and raise other significant logistical challenges. See infra Section I.D.;
`
`Decl. of Thomas Orr ¶¶ 8-9 (“Decl.”). The remedy Plaintiffs seek could also impact Bayer’s
`
`marketing and sales of its seeds and herbicides. See Decl. ¶¶ 10-11. These economic injuries
`
`constitute cognizable harm sufficient to demonstrate constitutional standing. See Carpenters
`
`Indus. Council v. Zinke, 854 F.3d 1, 5 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (“Economic harm to a business clearly
`
`constitutes an injury-in-fact. And the amount is irrelevant. A dollar of economic harm is still an
`
`injury-in-fact for standing purposes.”).
`
`Third, the challenged registration and labeling requirements allow Bayer to capture the
`
`value of its investments in patent rights and other valuable intellectual property relating to
`
`XtendiMax. See Decl. ¶¶ 6-7. These intellectual property interests are independently sufficient to
`
`establish Bayer’s right to intervene. See, e.g., Mova Pharm. Corp. v. Shalala, 140 F.3d 1060,
`
`1074-76 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (drug patent owner had protectable interest); Triax Co. v. TRW, Inc., 724
`
`F.2d 1224, 1227 (6th Cir. 1984) (interest in receiving royalties supported intervention as of right).
`
`Fourth, Bayer has significant, protectable interests in the considerable efforts (and costs)
`
`it invested in the administrative process that led to the current registration, including submission
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 7 Filed 11/11/20 Page 15 of 23
`
`
`
`of new and voluminous scientific material to support EPA’s regulatory analysis under FIFRA.
`
`Indeed, as the record in this case will show, Bayer conducted and submitted dozens of scientific
`
`studies and analyses, and expended considerable time and effort to justify registration of its
`
`product. See Decl. ¶ 13. Such “participat[ion] in the administrative process” that culminated in
`
`the challenged administrative action creates an interest sufficient to support intervention. Idaho
`
`Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Babbitt, 58 F.3d 1392, 1397-98 (9th Cir. 1995); Hardin v. Jackson, 600 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 13, 14 (D.D.C. 2009) (pesticide registrant entitled to intervene under Rule 24(a)(2) to
`
`protect interests where it “applied for [the] registrations, submitted the data in support of them,
`
`and worked with [EPA] to secure and maintain the registrations.”).
`
`Because Bayer has met the injury-in-fact requirement, it necessarily has met the causation
`
`and redressability requirements for standing. Where a plaintiff’s suit challenges an agency
`
`decision that was in the applicant’s favor, “it rationally follows [that] the injury is directly traceable
`
`to [plaintiff’s] challenge.” Crossroads, 788 F.3d at 316. In such cases, the causation and
`
`redressability requirements for standing are met. Id. The same is true here where Plaintiffs’
`
`challenge threatens to reverse EPA’s careful consideration of labeling requirements and impose
`
`costs and administrative burdens on Bayer.
`
`B.
`
`This Motion Is Timely
`
`Bayer filed this motion only five business days after Plaintiffs filed their complaint, and
`
`before any responsive pleadings or dispositive motions have been filed. No party would be
`
`prejudiced by Bayer intervening at this early stage of the proceeding. For these reasons, this
`
`motion is timely. See, e.g., Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728, 735 (D.C. Cir. 2003)
`
`(motion timely when filed less than two months after commencement of suit); Roeder v. Islamic
`
`Republic of Iran, 333 F.3d 228, 233 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (motion timely when filed thirty days after
`
`intervenor-defendant received notice).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 7 Filed 11/11/20 Page 16 of 23
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Bayer Has Protectable Interests at Issue
`
`The D.C. Circuit has held that the existence of constitutional standing suffices to show a
`
`legally protected interest for purposes of Rule 24. See Crossroads, 788 F.3d at 320 (“[S]ince [the
`
`proposed defendant-intervenor] has constitutional standing, it a fortiori has ‘an interest relating to
`
`the property or transaction which is the subject of the action.” (quoting Fund for Animals, 322 F.3d
`
`at 735)); see also Jones v. Prince George’s Cty., Md., 348 F.3d 1014, 1018-19 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
`
`As explained in Section I.A., Bayer has four protectable interests: (1) its registration, which is
`
`directly challenged in this case; (2) its financial interests in its existing label and expected seed
`
`and herbicide sales; (3) its intellectual property relating to the herbicide formulation that is the
`
`subject of the challenged agency action; and (4) its efforts (with associated costs) invested in the
`
`administrative process.
`
`For all of these reasons, Bayer satisfies the significant protectable interest requirement. See
`
`Hardin, 600 F. Supp. 2d at 14, 16.
`
`D.
`
`The Relief Sought Would Impair Bayer’s Ability to Protect Its Interests
`
`To satisfy the third part of the Rule 24(a)(2) test, Bayer need only show that an unfavorable
`
`disposition of this action “may as a practical matter impair or impede” its ability to protect its
`
`interests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). The D.C. Circuit interprets this language to require a court to
`
`consider the “practical consequences” of denying intervention to the applicant. Fund for Animals,
`
`322 F.3d at 735. Among other relief, Plaintiffs seek a declaration regarding the legality of Bayer’s
`
`label. That alone should be sufficient to support intervention.
`
`But Plaintiffs’ challenge also threatens to alter the label governing Bayer’s product.
`
`Changing a printed and/or widely distributed product label is expensive and difficult, particularly
`
`given the highly detailed limitations imposed by FIFRA for such an effort. See, e.g.,
`
`7 U.S.C.§ 136e(a); 40 C.F.R. § 165.3 (labeling a product may only be accomplished in an
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03190-RCL Document 7 Filed 11/11/20 Pa