Natural Grocers v. Perdue

Background

Agricultural trade associations and groups asked to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. Intervention allows a nonparty to participate in an existing lawsuit. The request concerned the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard.

Intervention as of right

The court denied intervention as of right. The court assumed that the proposed intervenors had satisfied the first three elements of the applicable four-part test. It concluded that they had not satisfied the fourth element: showing that the existing parties would not adequately represent their interests.

The proposed intervenors and the United States defendants shared the same ultimate objective of upholding the disclosure standard. Because the government was already acting in the litigation on that common interest, the proposed intervenors had to make a very compelling, evidence-based showing that the government’s representation was inadequate. The court found that they offered no facts establishing inadequacy and that the record did not show that the government was unwilling or reluctant to defend the challenged rulemaking.

Permissive intervention and conditions

The court granted permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(1)(B), which allows intervention when a court exercises its discretion to permit participation in a case. The court noted that, for the most part, the plaintiffs and the United States did not object. It found that any possible delay or unfair prejudice could be managed through conditions.

The agricultural groups may address all claims in the complaint. To avoid duplicating the government’s arguments, they may file a motion or response seven court days after the government files its submission, may raise only new or different arguments, and may not repeat the government’s arguments. Their motion filings are limited to 15 pages unless the court grants a prior request for additional pages based on good cause. If discovery is warranted in the administrative-record case, the intervenors may not serve discovery requests without prior court approval.

Other directions and effect

The court directed the parties and intervenors to meet and confer about a proposed scheduling order accounting for the intervenors’ filings. They were also directed to propose an agreed number of additional pages for plaintiffs’ responses. The court said cross-motions for summary judgment were disfavored and directed the proposed schedule to contemplate one summary-judgment motion by the plaintiffs, followed by a response from the government and/or intervenors. The parties and intervenors were directed, to the fullest extent possible, to submit one brief per side. The proposed scheduling order was due July 19, 2021. Judge James Donato issued the order.