National Family Farm Coalition v. Vilsack
- James Donato
- 3:21-cv-05695
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In National Family Farm Coalition v. Vilsack, Judge Donato allowed BIO and ASTA to join the case under conditions limiting their filings and arguments.
BIO and ASTA were permitted to intervene in the case, subject to filing, timing, page-limit, and briefing conditions. The original parties were directed to account for the intervenors in a proposed scheduling order.
What happened
National Family Farm Coalition and other plaintiffs are litigating against Tom Vilsack and other defendants. The Biotechnology Innovation Organization and American Seed Trade Association asked to join the case.
The court said BIO and ASTA could not join automatically because the government adequately shared their goal of upholding the challenged regulation. But because the plaintiffs and government did not object, the court allowed them to participate under a rule permitting intervention when a party’s claims or defenses share a common legal or factual question.
Judge Donato required BIO and ASTA to wait seven court days after the government files before filing motions or responses, raise only new or different arguments, and generally limit their filings to 10 pages. The court also ordered the parties to propose a schedule accounting for those filings.
The detailed version
- National Family Farm Coalition v. Vilsack · No. 3:21-cv-05695
- James Donato
- Feb. 7, 2022
Background
The Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) and American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) moved to intervene in the case brought by National Family Farm Coalition and other plaintiffs against Tom Vilsack and other defendants. The opinion concerns only whether BIO and ASTA could participate in the litigation; it does not decide the merits of the challenge to the regulation.
Intervention as of right
The court determined that BIO and ASTA were not entitled to intervene as of right. They shared with the government the same ultimate objective of upholding the challenged regulation, and the government was acting on behalf of that common interest. Because of that overlap, BIO and ASTA needed to make a very compelling, evidence-based showing that the government would not adequately represent their interests. The court found that they had not made that showing. Their argument that they had narrower interests and a detailed understanding of the effects of a possible vacatur or other remedy did not explain how the government’s advocacy would be inadequate.
Permissive intervention and conditions
The court found that the requirements for permissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(1)(B) were satisfied. The plaintiffs and the government did not object, and any potential delay or unfair prejudice could be managed through conditions. The court therefore granted BIO and ASTA’s motion to intervene under that rule.
BIO and ASTA may file a motion or response seven court days after the government files its submission. They may raise only new or different arguments and may not repeat the government’s arguments. Their motion filings are limited to 10 pages unless the court grants additional pages in advance for good cause; the court cautioned that additional pages will be allowed sparingly.
Additional directions
The parties and intervenors must meet and confer about a proposed scheduling order that accounts for the timing of the intervenors’ filings. They must also propose an agreed number of additional pages for plaintiffs to use when responding to those filings. The court said cross-motions for summary judgment are 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 proposed scheduling order was due February 28, 2022. The court also directed the parties and intervenors to submit one brief per side to the fullest extent possible and stated that the government need not pre-screen filings or share litigation strategies with the intervenors.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.