throbber
Case: 21-71180, 08/13/2021, ID: 12201197, DktEntry: 10, Page 1 of 23
`
`No. 21-71180
`
`
`
`IN THE
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Ninth Circuit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY AND CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al.,
`Respondents.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE UNITED STATES
`ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BASF CORPORATION’S MOTION TO INTERVENE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`John C. Cruden
`Kathryn E. Szmuszkovicz
`David A. Barker
`
`BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C.
`1900 N Street, N.W., Suite 100
`Washington, D.C. 20036
` (202) 789-6000
`
`jcc@bdlaw.com
`
`kes@bdlaw.com
`
`dab@bdlaw.com
`
`
`Counsel for Proposed Intervenor
`BASF Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 21-71180, 08/13/2021, ID: 12201197, DktEntry: 10, Page 2 of 23
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 and Federal Rule of
`
`Appellate Procedure 26.1, counsel for Proposed Intervenor BASF Corporation
`
`(“BASF”) certifies that BASF Corporation is a Delaware Corporation whose
`
`shares are not publicly traded. BASF Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of
`
`BASF USA Holding LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. BASF USA
`
`Holding LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of BASF Nederland BV, a Dutch
`
`limited liability company. BASF Nederland BV is a wholly owned subsidiary of
`
`BASF SE (Societas Europaea – “SE”), a publicly traded European company.
`
`Further, no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of BASF Corporation's
`
`stock.
`
`August 13, 2021
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kathryn E. Szmuszkovicz
`Kathryn E. Szmuszkovicz
`BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND PC
`1900 N Street, N.W., Suite 100
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`(202) 789-6037
`kes@bdlaw.com
`Counsel for Proposed Intervenor
`BASF Corporation
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 21-71180, 08/13/2021, ID: 12201197, DktEntry: 10, Page 3 of 23
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`Regulatory Framework .......................................................................... 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`FIFRA’s Comprehensive Regulation Of Pesticides ................... 3
`
`ESA And Its Implementation For Pesticides .............................. 5
`
`B.
`
`The Challenged Registrations ............................................................... 6
`
`III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 7
`
`A. Allowing BASF To Intervene Serves the Policies Underlying
`Intervention As Of Right ....................................................................... 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Motion Is Timely ................................................................. 9
`
`BASF Has A Significantly Protectable Interest In The Subject
`Matter Of This Action ............................................................... 10
`
`The Disposition of This Action May Impair or Impede BASF’s
`Ability to Protect Its Interests ................................................... 12
`
`BASF’s Interests Are Not Adequately Represented by EPA Or
`Other Parties .............................................................................. 13
`
`B. Allowing BASF To Intervene Serves the Policies Underlying
`Permissive Intervention ....................................................................... 16
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 18
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 21-71180, 08/13/2021, ID: 12201197, DktEntry: 10, Page 4 of 23
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
`
`BASF Corporation (“BASF”) respectfully moves for leave to intervene on
`
`behalf of Respondents in the above-captioned Petition for Review. BASF
`
`contacted counsel for the parties and Respondents’ counsel indicated they do
`
`not oppose the motion. Petitioners’ counsel indicated that they would reserve
`
`their position until after reviewing the motion.
`
`BASF’s direct interest in this action justifies intervention. BASF owns the
`
`registrations issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”
`
`or “the Agency”) for herbicide products containing the new active ingredient
`
`trifludimoxazin that Petitioners seek to challenge in this action. Petition at 2;
`
`Petition Exhibit A at 3. The registrations are federal licenses issued under the
`
`Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7 U.S.C. § 136 et
`
`seq., without which BASF cannot distribute and sell herbicide products containing
`
`trifludimoxazin, including its Tirexor product.
`
`On May 25, 2021, EPA granted BASF registrations for Tirexor Herbicide
`
`Technical, a technical product containing 99.2% trifludimoxazin, and Tirexor
`
`Herbicide, an end-use product containing trifludimoxazin. These registrations
`
`allow BASF to produce and sell Tirexor for use on agricultural fields and in non-
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 21-71180, 08/13/2021, ID: 12201197, DktEntry: 10, Page 5 of 23
`
`agricultural settings to control broadleaf and grass weed species. Trifludimoxazin
`
`provides growers an important new tool for control of waterhemp and palmer
`
`amaranth in crops, including corn and soybean, where PPO-inhibitor-resistant
`
`weeds are present.1 Its unique properties provide effective weed control and help
`
`manage increasing challenges posed by herbicide-resistant weeds.2
`
`Petitioners ask this Court to find unlawful EPA’s May 12, 2021 Registration
`
`Decision and the Agency’s May 25, 2021 orders granting the trifludimoxazin
`
`registrations, to set aside or vacate the registrations, and to stop the use and sale of
`
`trifludimoxazin herbicide products authorized by the registrations. Petition at 2.
`
`The requirements for intervention under Rule 15(d) are satisfied. BASF’s
`
`request is timely, BASF’s trifludimoxazin registrations are the registrations
`
`Petitioners seek to vacate, and BASF’s ability to protect its interests in its
`
`registrations would be impaired by an adverse disposition. Finally, as courts have
`
`repeatedly held in similar actions, BASF’s private interests will not be adequately
`
`represented by EPA. In defending its registration decisions, the Agency takes into
`
`account broader interests and objectives that diverge from BASF’s more specific
`
`
`1 Memorandum Supporting Decision to Approve Registration for the New
`Active Ingredient, Trifludimoxazin (May 12, 2021) (“Registration
`Memorandum”), Petition Exhibit A at 3, 19.
`2 Registration Memorandum at 19.
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 21-71180, 08/13/2021, ID: 12201197, DktEntry: 10, Page 6 of 23
`
`commercial and reputational interests in its own product registrations. As has
`
`occurred in prior challenges to FIFRA registrations, this may lead EPA to take
`
`different positions, present different arguments and interpretations of the
`
`administrative record, and agree to settlement terms that would not be acceptable
`
`to BASF. Accordingly, the Court should grant BASF’s Motion to Intervene.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Regulatory Framework
`
`1. FIFRA’s Comprehensive Regulation Of Pesticides
`
`Under FIFRA, every pesticide product must be registered by EPA before it
`
`can be distributed or sold in the United States (with limited exceptions not relevant
`
`here). 7 U.S.C. § 136a.3 “A “registration” is a “license that allows a pesticide
`
`product to be distributed or sold for specific uses under specified terms and
`
`conditions.” Pesticides; Procedural Regulations for Registration Review, 71 Fed.
`
`Reg. 45,720, 45,720 (Aug. 9, 2006); see Reckitt Benckiser Inc. v. EPA, 613 F.3d
`
`1131, 1133 (D.C. Cir. 2010). A registration is issued to a specific registrant, for a
`
`specific formulation, packaging, and label. See 40 C.F.R. § 152.3 (defining
`
`“[p]esticide product” as “a pesticide in the particular form (including composition,
`
`
`3 See also 40 C.F.R. § 152.15 (“No person may distribute or sell any pesticide
`product that is not registered under the Act.”); 7 U.S.C. § 136j(a)(1)(A) (unlawful to
`distribute or sell unregistered pesticides).
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 21-71180, 08/13/2021, ID: 12201197, DktEntry: 10, Page 7 of 23
`
`packaging, and labeling) in which the pesticide is, or is intended to be, distributed
`
`or sold”); 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(1)(C).
`
`To obtain an EPA registration for a pesticide product, with certain
`
`exceptions not relevant here, an applicant must submit extensive scientific data
`
`sufficient to support a determination by EPA that use of the product as directed
`
`will pose no “unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the
`
`economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits” of the product. 7 U.S.C.
`
`§ 136(bb). As reflected in this “risk/benefit” standard and throughout the statute,
`
`“FIFRA explicitly accommodates agriculture’s need for pesticides” and “reflects
`
`the need to balance environmental and agricultural impacts.” Merrell v. Thomas,
`
`807 F.2d 776, 780-81 (9th Cir. 1986).
`
`Under FIFRA, EPA can approve a registration unconditionally, deny the
`
`application, or approve it with conditions. 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)-(7). The statute
`
`directs EPA to grant an unconditional registration when it determines, among other
`
`things, that the product does not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the
`
`environment (applying the “risk/benefit” standard described above) when used as
`
`instructed on the EPA-approved product label.4 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(C)-(D).
`
`
`4 It is illegal to use a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its label. 7 U.S.C.
`§ 136j(a)(2)(G).
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 21-71180, 08/13/2021, ID: 12201197, DktEntry: 10, Page 8 of 23
`
`2. ESA And Its Implementation For Pesticides
`
`The Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-44, was originally
`
`enacted in 1973. Congress has amended the ESA on several occasions to foster a
`
`balance between the protection of endangered and threatened species, and the need
`
`to sustain vigorous agricultural production through the development and use of
`
`innovative new pesticide products registered under FIFRA.
`
`Each federal agency retains discretion to determine how best to fulfill its
`
`statutory obligations under the ESA. Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. U.S.
`
`Dep’t of Navy, 898 F.2d 1410, 1418 (9th Cir. 1990). ESA Section 7(a)(2) includes
`
`procedural mechanisms for informal and formal consultation between the action
`
`agency (here, EPA) and one of the two federal services responsible for wildlife and
`
`marine life (the “Services”). 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). If the action agency
`
`determines that its action will have “no effect” on listed species or critical habitat,
`
`no consultation is required. 40 C.F.R. § 402.14(a). If the agency determines that
`
`its action “may effect” but is “not likely to adversely affect” a listed species or
`
`critical habitat, and the Service concurs, consultation is completed through
`
`informal consultation. 50 C.F.R. § 402.13(c). Otherwise, formal consultation is
`
`required to determine whether or not the action is “likely to jeopardize the
`
`continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 21-71180, 08/13/2021, ID: 12201197, DktEntry: 10, Page 9 of 23
`
`modification of critical habitat.” 50 C.F.R. 402.14(h)(1)(iv).
`
`In the 1988 ESA amendments, Congress explicitly directed that the ESA be
`
`implemented so as “to minimize the impacts to persons engaged in agricultural
`
`food and fiber commodity production and other affected pesticide users and
`
`applicators.” Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-478,
`
`§ 1010, 102 Stat. 2313, 2313-14 (1988), 7 U.S.C. § 136a note; see also H.R. Rep.
`
`No. 100-928, at 23-24 (1988) (Conf. Rep.), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2738,
`
`2741-42 (federal agencies are to “implement the [ESA] in a way that protects
`
`endangered and threatened species while minimizing, where possible, impacts on
`
`production of agricultural foods and fiber commodities”).5
`
`B.
`
`The Challenged Registrations
`
`BASF invented and developed trifludimoxazin, a new active ingredient
`
`belonging to the PPO-inhibitor class of herbicides, in response to the growing need
`
`for additional tools to provide control of problematic annual broadleaf weed and
`
`grass weed species.6 Because of its unique properties, trifludimoxazin will help
`
`
`5 See also, 134 Cong. Rec. 18573-4 (1988) (directing that EPA activities
`regarding ESA implementation be conducted in ways that “would protect
`endangered or threatened species from pesticides and. . . minimize any adverse
`effect on the production of food and fiber,” thereby “minimizing impacts to the
`farmers, ranchers, and foresters who earn their living from food and fiber
`production”) (statement of Sen. Quentin Burdick).
`6 See Registration Memorandum at 16-17.
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 21-71180, 08/13/2021, ID: 12201197, DktEntry: 10, Page 10 of 23
`
`control the spread of weed types that have become resistant to other PPO-inhibitor
`
`herbicides, including troublesome and economically important weed types like
`
`waterhemp and palmer amaranth.7 In order to obtain approval for trifludimoxazin
`
`and the end-use Tirexor product and bring Tirexor to market, BASF made
`
`substantial investments in research, development, scientific data required for
`
`regulatory approval, training, and stewardship.
`
`On May 12, 2021 EPA published its decision to approve the registration of
`
`products containing the new active ingredient trifludimoxazin, and on May 25,
`
`2021, EPA issued orders granting unconditional registration of BASF’s Tirexor
`
`Herbicide Technical and Tirexor Herbicide Products.8
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`Under Rule 15(d), a party moving for intervention must do so “within 30
`
`days after the petition for review is filed” and need only provide a “concise
`
`statement of interest . . . and the grounds for intervention.” Fed. R. App. P. 15(d).
`
`Although Rule 15(d) does not specify criteria for intervention, Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 24 and the “policies underlying intervention” in district courts
`
`
`7 Id.
`8 Registration Memorandum, Petition Exhibit A; Tirexor Herbicide
`Registration (May 25, 2021), Petition Exhibit B. The Petition does not include a
`copy of the May 25, 2021 Tirexor Herbicide Technical registration order.
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 21-71180, 08/13/2021, ID: 12201197, DktEntry: 10, Page 11 of 23
`
`provide guidance. See Int’l Union U.A.W. v. Scofield, 382 U.S. 205, 216 n.10
`
`(1965).
`
`Intervention is plainly warranted. BASF owns the trifludimoxazin
`
`registrations that Petitioners seek to vacate. BASF invested considerable resources
`
`to obtain those registrations and to create with Tirexor a needed solution for
`
`farmers to control resistant weeds on their fields. The trifludimoxazin registrations
`
`are federal licenses specific to BASF, which provide the legal basis for BASF to
`
`conduct its business. BASF will suffer severe and irreparable harm if its
`
`trifludimoxazin registrations are vacated as requested by Petitioners. For all of
`
`these reasons, this Court should grant BASF’s motion for intervention. Indeed,
`
`registrants’ motions to intervene are routinely granted when their FIFRA
`
`registrations are challenged.
`
`A. Allowing BASF To Intervene Serves the Policies Underlying
`Intervention As Of Right
`
`An applicant is entitled to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 24(a)(2) if (1) the motion is “timely”; (2) the applicant claims a
`
`“significantly protectable” interest in property that is the subject of the action; (3)
`
`the action “may as a practical matter impair or impede [the applicant’s] ability to
`
`protect that interest”; and (4) the applicant’s interest is “inadequately represented”
`
`by the parties to the action. Wilderness Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173,
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 21-71180, 08/13/2021, ID: 12201197, DktEntry: 10, Page 12 of 23
`
`1177 (9th Cir. 2011). Rule 24(a) is construed broadly in favor of granting
`
`intervention. Id. at 1179 (“[A] liberal policy in favor of intervention serves both
`
`efficient resolution of issues and broadened access to the courts.”) (quoting United
`
`States v. City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d 391, 397-98 (9th Cir. 2002)). The Ninth
`
`Circuit’s practice reflects the “consistent approval of intervention of right on the
`
`side of the federal defendant in cases asserting violations of environmental
`
`statutes . . . .” Wilderness Soc’y, 630 F.3d at 1179 (citations omitted).
`
`In applying the intervention factors, courts “accept as true the non-conclusory
`
`allegations made in support of an intervention motion.” Sw. Ctr. for Biological
`
`Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 819-20 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). “Courts
`
`are to take all well-pleaded, nonconclusory allegations in the motion to intervene . . .
`
`as true absent sham, frivolity or other objections.” Id. at 820.
`
`All requirements for intervention as of right are satisfied here.
`
`1.
`
`The Motion Is Timely
`
`This motion is timely because it was filed within the 30 day period set by
`
`Rule 15(d). None of the other applicable timeliness considerations weigh against
`
`intervention. BASF has not delayed in seeking intervention and intervention at this
`
`early stage will not cause any prejudice to other parties. See League of United
`
`Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 21-71180, 08/13/2021, ID: 12201197, DktEntry: 10, Page 13 of 23
`
`2.
`
`BASF Has A Significantly Protectable Interest In The
`Subject Matter Of This Action
`
`An applicant for intervention has adequate interests in a suit where “the
`
`resolution of the plaintiff’s claims actually will affect the applicant.” S. Cal.
`
`Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794, 803 (9th Cir. 2002). An interest is
`
`“significantly protectable” if it is “protectable under some law” and “there is a
`
`relationship between the legally protected interest and the claims at issue.” Sw.
`
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 268 F.3d at 818; Sierra Club v. U.S. EPA, 995 F.2d
`
`1478, 1484 (9th Cir.1993), abrogated on other grounds by Wilderness Soc’y U.S.
`
`Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1180 (9th Cir. 2010). “[T]he ‘interest’ test is
`
`primarily a practical guide to disposing of lawsuits by involving as many
`
`apparently concerned persons as is compatible with efficiency and due process.”
`
`County of Fresno v. Andrus, 622 F.2d 436, 438 (9th Cir. 1980) (citation omitted).
`
`The Ninth Circuit has long recognized that the holder of a government-
`
`issued license has a sufficiently protectable interest to support intervention in an
`
`action that attacks the validity of the license. See, e.g., Sierra Club, 995 F.2d at
`
`1482-83 (holding that water quality permittees could intervene as of right where
`
`plaintiffs sought to have EPA restrict the permits). Federal courts have repeatedly
`
`held that a FIFRA registrant has a legally protected property interest in its pesticide
`
`registration sufficient to warrant intervention as of right in actions challenging the
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 21-71180, 08/13/2021, ID: 12201197, DktEntry: 10, Page 14 of 23
`
`validity of the registration. See, e.g., Pesticide Action Network N. Am. (PANNA) v.
`
`U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. C 08-01814 MHP, 2008 WL 11404954, at *3 (N.D.
`
`Cal. July 8, 2008) (“The registrations involved here are essentially government
`
`licenses to produce, distribute and sell pesticides . . . [and] therefore constitute
`
`property . . . .”); Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. EPA, 99 F.R.D. 607, 609 (D.D.C.
`
`1983) (“Plaintiffs’ complaint challenges procedures pursuant to which EPA
`
`reached preliminary decisions that the intervenors’ pesticide products merited
`
`continued registration. . . . Thus, the intervenors can be said to have a substantial
`
`and direct interest in the subject of this litigation.”).9
`
`Indeed, because BASF holds a property interest in the challenged
`
`registration, it has a constitutional due process right to be heard in this case. See,
`
`e.g., PANNA at *3 (FIFRA registrations “constitute property”); Parklane Hosiery
`
`Co., Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 327 n.7 (1979) (“It is a violation of due process
`
`for a judgment to be binding on a litigant who was not a party or a privy and
`
`
`9 See also, e.g., Order, Am. Soybean Ass’n v. Regan, No. 20-1441 (D.C. Cir.
`July 12, 2021) (granting BASF intervention in action challenging a pesticide
`registration held by BASF); Order, Am. Soybean Ass’n v. Wheeler, No. 1:20-cv-
`3190-RCL, Dkt. No. 20 (D.D.C. Nov. 13, 2020) (same); Nat'l Family Farm Coal.
`v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 19-70115, Dkt. No. 29 (9th Cir. May 15, 2020)
`(granting intervention to owner of pesticide registration challenged in the action);
`Nat’l Family Farm Coal. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No 17-70810, Dkt No. 14
`(9th Cir. May 3, 2017) (same).
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 21-71180, 08/13/2021, ID: 12201197, DktEntry: 10, Page 15 of 23
`
`therefore has never had an opportunity to be heard.”) (citation omitted).
`
`As the owner of the trifludimoxazin registrations that Petitioners seek to
`
`vacate, BASF has a significantly protectable interest in the subject matter of this
`
`case. If EPA’s orders approving the trifludimoxazin registrations are invalidated,
`
`or the registrations are vacated or restricted, BASF will lose its legal basis to
`
`distribute and sell its Tirexor product.
`
`3.
`
`The Disposition of This Action May Impair or Impede
`BASF’s Ability to Protect Its Interests
`
`Impairment is demonstrated where the “relief sought by the plaintiffs will
`
`have direct, immediate, and harmful effects upon [the proposed intervenor’s]
`
`legally protectable interests.” Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 268 F.3d at 818
`
`(quoting Forest Conservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 66 F.3d 1489, 1494
`
`(9th Cir. 1995)). “If an absentee would be substantially affected in a practical
`
`sense by the determination made in an action, he should, as a general rule, be
`
`entitled to intervene . . . .” Citizens for Balanced Use v. Mont. Wilderness Ass’n,
`
`647 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 advisory
`
`committee’s note).
`
`To deny intervention would render BASF a bystander as the fate of its own
`
`registration is decided. As discussed above, vacating the trifludimoxazin
`
`registration would deprive BASF of its property, and an order that suspended or
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 21-71180, 08/13/2021, ID: 12201197, DktEntry: 10, Page 16 of 23
`
`restricted the trifludimoxazin registrations or enjoined their further use would
`
`severely impact BASF’s interest in its trifludimoxazin registrations and business.
`
`BASF would suffer the loss of its investments spent to develop the product, obtain
`
`registration, and prepare to bring it to market. It would also suffer substantial
`
`economic and reputational impairment, including lost income and profits and the
`
`disruption of business relationships with distributors and customers who rely on
`
`BASF to defend its registrations and ensure the continued availability of important
`
`agricultural products.
`
`4.
`
`BASF’s Interests Are Not Adequately Represented by EPA
`
`This final requirement is “minimal,” and is satisfied so long as “the applicant
`
`can demonstrate that representation of its interests ‘may be’ inadequate.” Citizens
`
`for Balanced Use v. Montana Wilderness Ass’n, 647 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 2011)
`
`(quoting Arakaki, 324 F.3d at 1086); see also Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of
`
`Am., 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10 (1972). Three factors are relevant in conducting this
`
`inquiry: “(1) whether the interest of a present party is such that it will undoubtedly
`
`make all of a proposed intervenor’s arguments; (2) whether the present party is
`
`capable and willing to make such arguments; and (3) whether a proposed
`
`intervenor would offer any necessary elements to the proceeding that other parties
`
`would neglect.” Citizens for Balanced Use, 647 F.3d at 898.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 21-71180, 08/13/2021, ID: 12201197, DktEntry: 10, Page 17 of 23
`
`The existing parties do not adequately represent BASF’s interests. Although
`
`EPA and BASF may have “similar interests, they are not perfectly congruent”
`
`since EPA “represent[s] a broader view than the more narrow, parochial interests”
`
`of BASF. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Serv., 2016 WL
`
`3638128, at *4 (D. Ariz. June 10, 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). EPA’s
`
`interests as a regulator are different from BASF’s, and it may have objectives in
`
`this action that diverge from BASF’s. EPA presumably will defend its action.
`
`However, EPA has broader public policy objectives relating to its administration of
`
`the federal pesticide program as a whole, and is charged with balancing the private
`
`interests of pesticide registrants with the competing interests of various other
`
`stakeholders. In addition, EPA’s litigation positions are at least in part determined
`
`by the U.S. Department of Justice, which is further constrained by the need to
`
`serve government-wide policy objectives and to protect the government’s litigation
`
`position in other cases.
`
`By contrast, BASF has a particular interest in the trifludimoxazin
`
`registrations, coupled with specific knowledge that can be offered in defense of the
`
`product and registrations, including arguments EPA may be unable or unwilling to
`
`make. BASF has a direct financial interest in preserving its registration and in
`
`continuing to operate and expand its trifludimoxazin business that is plainly not
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 21-71180, 08/13/2021, ID: 12201197, DktEntry: 10, Page 18 of 23
`
`shared by EPA as a regulator. See Forest Conservation Council v. U.S. Forest
`
`Serv., 66 F.3d 1489, 1499 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Inadequate representation is most
`
`likely to be found when the applicant asserts a personal interest that does not
`
`belong to the general public.”) (quoting 3B James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s
`
`Federal Practice ¶ 24.07[4] at 24-78 (2d ed. 1995)). These distinct interests and
`
`objectives may lead EPA to take different positions, present different arguments
`
`and interpretations of the administrative record, and agree to settlement terms that
`
`would not be acceptable to BASF.
`
`Moreover, EPA regulates BASF and decides whether or not a requested
`
`registration will be granted, and on what terms. See United States v. City of Los
`
`Angeles, 288 F.3d 391, 402 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The presumption [of adequate
`
`representation] has not been applied to parties who are antagonists in the collective
`
`bargaining process.”); Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. Cal. Dep’t of
`
`Transp., No. 09-01622, 2009 WL 5206722, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2009)
`
`(finding that no presumption of adequate representation applied where the
`
`intervenors’ interest “has at times pitted them against” the government defendant).
`
`For all these reasons, courts have repeatedly recognized that pesticide registrants’
`
`interests in defending their registrations are not adequately represented by EPA.10
`
`
`10 See e.g., Ellis v. Bradbury, No. 3:13-cv-01266-MMC, Dkt. No. 66 (N.D.
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 21-71180, 08/13/2021, ID: 12201197, DktEntry: 10, Page 19 of 23
`
`For the foregoing reasons, BASF should be granted leave to intervene in all
`
`aspects of this matter as of right, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2).
`
`B. Allowing BASF To Intervene Serves the Policies Underlying
`Permissive Intervention
`
`If intervention as of right is denied, the Court should grant BASF permissive
`
`intervention, which requires (1) “an independent ground for jurisdiction;” (2) “a
`
`timely motion”; and (3) “a common question of law and fact between the movant’s
`
`claim or defense and the main action.” Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v.
`
`Geithner, 644 F.3d 836, 843 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`BASF easily satisfies all of these requirements. First, because this is “a
`
`federal-question case” and BASF “does not seek to bring any counterclaims or
`
`cross-claims,” “the independent jurisdictional grounds requirement does not
`
`apply.” Id. at 844 (explaining that in this circumstance, the court’s jurisdiction “is
`
`grounded in the federal question(s) raised by the plaintiff,” and so “the identity of
`
`
`Calif. Aug. 6, 2013) (granting registrants’ motion to intervene); Hardin v. Jackson,
`600 F. Supp. 2d 13, 16-17 (D.D.C. 2009) (granting registrant’s motion to intervene
`because its economic interests were not shared by EPA); United Farm Workers v.
`Adm’r, U.S. EPA, No. C 07-3950, 2008 WL 3929140, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26,
`2008) (“Courts have recognized that . . . private companies like [the pesticide
`registrant] have a more parochial and financial interest not shared by the EPA.”)
`(citing Forest Conservation Council, 66 F.3d at 1498-99); PANNA at *3 (“EPA’s
`interests, as the governmental body that regulates pesticides, necessarily differ from
`the interests of the regulated private parties that manufacture pesticides and own the
`registrations.”).
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 21-71180, 08/13/2021, ID: 12201197, DktEntry: 10, Page 20 of 23
`
`the parties is irrelevant”). Second, as discussed above, BASF’s motion is timely
`
`because intervention before any responsive pleadings are filed will not unduly
`
`delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the existing parties. Third,
`
`Petitioners seek to vacate or restrict the trifludimoxazin registrations and to contest
`
`that outcome BASF will “raise[] questions of law and fact common to” EPA’s
`
`defense of the registrations. S. California Edison, 307 F.3d at 804.
`
`Finally, BASF’s participation will not “unduly delay” the action or “unfairly
`
`prejudice the existing parties.” Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405, 412 (9th Cir.
`
`1998). BASF’s intervention within the Rule 15(d) deadline and before any
`
`responsive pleadings or other motions have been filed will not cause any delay or
`
`prejudice. Moreover, permissive intervention is especially appropriate in litigation
`
`involving complex issues where the intervenor would aid the court in
`
`understanding the factual issues of the case. See 6 Moore’s Federal Practice
`
`§ 24.10[2][b]. EPA’s decision to register a new active ingredient involves a highly
`
`technical and scientific review of data submitted by the applicant for an active
`
`ingredient registration. Here, BASF submitted extensive data in support of the
`
`trifludimoxazin registration, so BASF’s participation will facilitate the Court’s
`
`review of the administrative record, and BASF will be in a position to “assist the
`
`court in its orderly procedures leading to the resolution of th[e] case . . . .”
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case: 21-71180, 08/13/2021, ID: 12201197, DktEntry: 10, Page 21 of 23
`
`Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1111 (9th Cir. 2002)
`
`abrogated on other grounds by Wilderness Soc’y, 630 F.3d at 1180; see also id. at
`
`1110-11 (affirming a grant of permissive intervention because “the magnitude of
`
`this case is such that . . . intervention will contribute to the equitable resolution of
`
`this case”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`Accordingly, if denied intervention as of right, BASF should be granted leave
`
`to intervene permissively in all aspects of this case.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`This Court should grant BASF’s Motion to Intervene under Fed. R. App. P.
`
`15(d).
`
`
`August 13, 2021
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kathryn E. Szmuszkovicz
`John C. Cruden
`Kathryn E. Szmuszkovicz
`David A. Barker
`BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C.
`1900 N Street, N.W., Suite 100
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`T: (202) 789-6000 F: (202) 789-6190
`jcc@bdlaw.com
`kes@bdlaw.com
`dab@bdlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Proposed Intervenor
`BASF Corporation
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case: 21-71180, 08/13/2021, ID: 12201197, DktEntry: 10, Page 22 of 23
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`I certify that this motion complies with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
`
`27(d)(1)(E) because it has been prepared in Times New Roman 14-point font using
`
`Microsoft Word 2010. I further certify that it complies with Federal Rule of
`
`Appellate Procedure 27(d)(2)(A) because it contains

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