Center for Biological Diversity v. Environmental Protection Agency

Background

The parties entered a settlement agreement that the court approved and adopted as a court order. The agreement required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to use its best efforts to issue a final Insecticide Strategy by January 17, 2025, and required it to issue the strategy no later than March 31, 2025. The agreement also required EPA to include responses to public comments on the draft strategy.

The agreement separately contained a covenant not to sue. Under that provision, the plaintiffs agreed not to bring or join certain proceedings concerning EPA’s obligations under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act regarding products containing the insecticide active ingredient propargite until six months after the earlier of the final strategy’s issuance or March 31, 2025.

EPA issued a draft final Insecticide Strategy for public comment on July 25, 2024. The comment period ended on September 23, 2024. EPA later told the court that it could not meet the January 17 deadline but expected to meet the March 31 deadline. On February 28, 2025, EPA moved for a 90-day extension of the strategy deadline and a corresponding extension of the covenant-not-to-sue date.

The parties’ arguments

EPA said it needed more time to review approximately 26,000 comments, evaluate new information, complete the strategy, and brief new agency leadership. It also identified other pesticide-related work and a February 24, 2025 letter from two members of Congress asking EPA to renegotiate the deadline.

The plaintiffs argued that the request was governed by Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and was untimely under the requirement that such motions be filed within a reasonable time. They also argued that the circumstances EPA identified were anticipated, that EPA had not made reasonable efforts to comply with the settlement, and that EPA had not shown that continued compliance was unworkable or detrimental to the public interest.

Court’s analysis

The court declined to deny the motion solely on procedural grounds. It concluded that Rule 60(b) governed the request because the settlement agreement functioned like a consent decree—a settlement that remains subject to court supervision. Rule 60(b)(5) permits modification of a court order when applying it prospectively is no longer equitable. The moving party must initially show a significant change in factual conditions or law that makes compliance more onerous, unworkable, or harmful to the public interest than anticipated when the decree was entered.

The court found that many of EPA’s reasons did not satisfy that standard. It found EPA’s explanation about not having sufficiently reviewed the public comments before the November 2024 meeting unpersuasive. The court also concluded that EPA had not shown that its other work, the change in administration, or the need to brief new political leadership amounted to an unanticipated change justifying the requested three-month extension. The court stated that EPA remained bound by the settlement and could not simply renegotiate it at the request of members of Congress.

The court nevertheless found one equitable reason for a limited extension: because only a few days remained before the March 31 deadline, enforcing it would effectively penalize EPA for not filing its motion earlier. The court determined that equity supported extending the strategy deadline to April 30, 2025.

Disposition

The motion was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The deadline for issuing the final Insecticide Strategy and responses to public comments was extended to April 30, 2025. The court did not extend the covenant-not-to-sue deadline, and no other deadline was modified.