Pesticide Action Network North America v. Williams

Background

Pesticide Action Network North America, Center for Biological Diversity, and Center for Food Safety challenged a biological opinion issued by Martha Williams and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The opinion assessed the effects of the Environmental Protection Agency’s registration of pesticide products containing malathion on endangered and threatened species and critical habitats protected by the Endangered Species Act. Plaintiffs alleged that the opinion was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise inconsistent with that Act.

CropLife America moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. CropLife described itself as a national not-for-profit trade association representing manufacturers, formulators, and distributors of crop-protection pesticides and pest-control products. Its members include companies that produce, sell, and distribute malathion, and seven members hold active EPA registrations for malathion products. Plaintiffs did not oppose intervention but asked the court to limit and sequence CropLife’s participation. The federal defendants took no position.

Intervention as of Right

The court granted CropLife’s motion to intervene as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2). It applied four requirements: the motion must be timely; the applicant must have a significantly protectable interest related to the case; the case’s outcome may impair the applicant’s ability to protect that interest; and existing parties may not adequately represent the applicant’s interest.

The court found all four requirements satisfied:

- Timeliness: CropLife moved to intervene within three months after the complaint was filed and before any substantive motions were filed. - Protectable interest: CropLife’s members had a significant interest in their malathion registrations, which the court described as related to the biological opinion being challenged. - Potential impairment: If plaintiffs succeeded, a replacement biological opinion could contain additional restrictions affecting CropLife members’ ability to protect their interests. The court also noted that plaintiffs sought to vacate an incidental take statement, whose terms and conditions provide protection from the Endangered Species Act’s general prohibition on taking endangered species. - Adequacy of representation: The federal defendants represented the interests of the public and regulators, while CropLife represented its members’ narrower interests in the potential regulation of their products. The court found CropLife had met the minimal burden of showing that its interests were not adequately represented.

Because CropLife’s members had a right to intervene, the court allowed CropLife to intervene on their behalf.

Requested Conditions on Participation

Plaintiffs asked the court to require CropLife to brief only issues not duplicated by the federal defendants, file motions or responses seven court days after the government’s filings, and operate under combined defense page limits matching those allocated to plaintiffs. CropLife had agreed to consult with federal defendants’ counsel before filings and to confer to reduce duplication. The parties requested an opportunity to meet and confer about the remaining conditions.

The court denied without prejudice plaintiffs’ request to impose conditions at that point. It ordered the parties to meet and confer and stated that it could address any remaining disputes at a future case-management conference.

Disposition

The court granted CropLife’s unopposed motion to intervene as a matter of right. CropLife’s proposed answer at Docket No. 26-1 was deemed filed. The court denied without prejudice plaintiffs’ request for conditions on CropLife’s participation and ordered the parties to meet and confer about those requests. The order disposed of Docket No. 26.