Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03950/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03950-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 07-3950

ORDER GRANTING DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC ‘S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF A COMPLETE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

(JFEX3)

**E-Filed 08/26/2008**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED FARM WORKERS; SEA MAR

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER;

PINEROS Y CAMPESINOS UNIDOS DEL

NOROESTE; BEYOND PESTICIDES;

FRENTE INDIGENA de

ORGANIZACIONES BINACIONALES;

FARM LABOR ORGANIZING

COMMITTEE, AFL-CIO; TEAMSTERS

LOCAL 890; PESTICIDE ACTION

NETWORK NORTH AMERICA; MARTHA

RODRIGUEZ; and SILVINA CANEZ,

,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY, 

 Defendant.

Case Number C 07-3950

ORDER1 GRANTING DOW

AGROSCIENCES LLC ‘S MOTION

TO INTERVENE AND PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO COMPEL

PRODUCTION OF A COMPLETE

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

re: docket no. 26, 34

Case 5:07-cv-03950-JF Document 67 Filed 08/26/08 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Case No. C 07-3950

ORDER GRANTING DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC ‘S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF A COMPLETE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

(JFEX3)

I. BACKGROUND

 The present action arises from the issuance of an Interim Reregistration Eligibility

Decision (“IRED”) for chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate insecticide, by the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) in September 2001. IREDS are the end product of a

reregistration process that the EPA is required to undertake for all pesticides registered before

November 1, 1984. See Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) § 4, 7

U.S.C. § 136a–1. Plaintiffs United Farm Workers et al. (“Plaintiffs”) have asked the Court to

declare that the EPA acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and contrary to law when it approved reregistration of chlorpyrifos for continued use in agricultural applications. Plaintiffs also seek

injunctive relief ordering the EPA to make a new reregistration eligibility decision for

chlorpyrifos. Dow Agrosciences LLC (“DAS”) has filed an unopposed motion to intervene in

the action. 

Plaintiffs move to compel the EPA to produce an augmented administrative record that

includes all materials that were before the agency at the time it made its decisions to re-register

chlorpyrifos including drafts, internal communications, and other deliberative materials, unless

the EPA can demonstrate that specific materials are privileged. The EPA asserts that it should

not be required to submit “drafts and deliberative documents” because such evidence is “not

properly part of the records for judicial review.” Docket 25 at 4 (“Joint Case Management

Statement”).

Plaintiffs and the EPA have agreed on a case schedule under which the EPA were to

submit an index and relevant excerpts of the administrative record by April 15, 2008. Docket 25

at 4 (“Joint Case Management Statement”). The EPA has stipulated to its position regarding the

scope of the record so the Court may resolve this issue at the outset and the EPA may then

proceed to file an administrative record that conforms to the Court’s ruling in accordance with

the agreed-upon schedule.

Case 5:07-cv-03950-JF Document 67 Filed 08/26/08 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Case No. C 07-3950

ORDER GRANTING DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC ‘S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF A COMPLETE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

(JFEX3)

II. DISCUSSION

1. Motion to Intervene

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), a third party is entitled to intervene as of

right in a case if four conditions are met: (1) the motion for intervention is timely; (2) the third

party claims an identifiable, “significantly protectable interest” relating to the property or

transaction that is the subject of the action; (3) disposition of the action may impair or impede the

third party’s ability to protect that interest; and (4) the existing parties to the action may

inadequately represent the third party’s interest. Sw. Ctr. Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d

810, 817 (9th Cir. 2001). This four-part test is to be construed “liberally in favor of applicants in

favor for intervention.” Cemex, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 92 F. A’ppx 457, 459 (9th Cir.

2004). 

In determining whether a motion is timely, district courts in this jurisdiction examine

three factors: (1) the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the

prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for and length of the delay. United States v. Alisal

Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 921 (9th Cir. 2004). In the instant case, DAS seeks to intervene at a

very early stage of litigation. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel filing of a complete

administrative record, which is currently pending. The record itself would not be filed until April

2008 and dispositive briefing would not occur until the summer of 2008. Thus, neither the

Plaintiffs nor EPA will be prejudiced by the timing of DAS’s motion to intervene. 

A proposed intervenor claims a significantly protectable interest within the meaning of

Rule 24(a)(2) if the interest asserted is protected by law and related to the plaintiff’s claims. 

Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d at 919. An economic interest constitutes a significantly protectable

interest if it is concrete and related to the underlying subject matter in the case. Id. DAS is the

creator and predominant manufacturer of chlorpyrifos, and it holds several EPA registrations that

allow it to distribute and sell chlorpyrifos. DAS thus has a significantly protectable interest. 

In addition, the disposition of this case may affect that interest. DAS asserts that if

Plaintiffs obtain the re-review of the chlorpyrifos IRED they seek, DAS’s potential customers

Case 5:07-cv-03950-JF Document 67 Filed 08/26/08 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Case No. C 07-3950

ORDER GRANTING DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC ‘S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF A COMPLETE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

(JFEX3)

may switch to substitutes as a result of uncertainty about the future availability of chlorpyrifos

products. DAS argues it will be forced to incur additional costs in defending the safety of

chloropyrifos, and that the disposition of this action will impair or impede DAS’s ability to

protect its interests in chlorpyrifos. 

The Ninth Circuit has explained:

In determining adequacy of representation, [courts] consider whether the interests of a

present party is such that it will undoubtedly make all the intervenor’s arguments;

whether the present party is capable and willing to make such arguments; and whether the

intervenor would offer necessary elements to the proceeding that other parties would

neglect. 

Forest Conservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 66 F.3d 1489, 1488-89 (9th Cir. 1995). Courts

have recognized that governmental agencies have a broad responsibility to represent the public

interest, whereas private companies like DAS have a more parochial and financial interest not

shared by the EPA. Id. at 1498-99. Moreover, DAS routinely conducts extensive research on the

pesticides it manufactures and thus has special expertise that makes it uniquely able to both

defend chlorpyrifos’ safety and to accurately portray the pesticide’s potential effects on human

health and the environment. “The applicant-intervenor’s burden in showing inadequate

representation is minimal: it is sufficient to show that representation may be inadequate.” Id. at

1498. Accordingly, DAS has made the minimal showing necessary that the EPA will not

represent its interests.

2. Motion to Compel

Plaintiffs’ claims under FIFRA are reviewed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) of the

Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) which requires that the Court’s review of agency

decisions be based on the “whole record” before the EPA at the time of its decisions. This

includes internal correspondence, memoranda and drafts that were part of the EPA’s decision

making process. The Ninth Circuit has emphasized that the “whole record” subject to review

under the APA is not merely the record designated and submitted by the agency. Portland

Audubon Society v. Endangered Species Committee, 984 F.2d 1534, 1548 (9th Cir. 1989). “The

whole administrative record. . . consists of all documents and materials directly or indirectly

Case 5:07-cv-03950-JF Document 67 Filed 08/26/08 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Available at http://www. 2fws.gov/policy/library/usdjguid.wpd.

5

Case No. C 07-3950

ORDER GRANTING DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC ‘S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF A COMPLETE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

(JFEX3)

considered by agency decision makers and includes evidence contrary to the agency’s position.” 

Thompson v. Dep’t of Labor, 885 F.2d 551, 555 (9th Cir. 1989). See also, Pac. Coast Fed’n of

Fishermen’s Assocs. v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 265 F.3d 1028, 1034 (9th Cir. 2001)

(reasoning that the central question in APA review is whether the agency considered the relevant

factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made). The

United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has instructed federal agencies to include drafts and

other deliberative materials in their records. Department of Justice, Guidance to Federal

Agencies on Compiling the Administrative Record (January 1999). “The focal point for judicial 2

review should be the administrative record already in existence, not some new record made in the

reviewing court.” Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743 (1985). The EPA

asserts that “an agency’s designation and certification of the administrative record is treated like

other established administrative procedures, and thus entitled to a presumption of administrative

regularity. . .absent clear evidence to the contrary.” McCrary v. Gutierrez, 495 F. Supp. 2d 1038,

1041 (N.D. Cal. 2007), citing Bar MK Ranches v. Yuetter, 994 F.2d 735, 740 (10th Cir. 1993),

citing Wilson v. Hodel, 758 F.2d 1369, 1374 (10th Cir. 1985). This presumption is not relevant

at this stage in the proceeding because the EPA is still compiling the administrative record. 

Defendant’s Opposition To Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Filing of A Complete Administrative

Record at 14. Plaintiffs are simply asking that the administrative record include all evidence

considered by the EPA when it made its re-registration decision. The Court agrees with

Plaintiffs. 

Case 5:07-cv-03950-JF Document 67 Filed 08/26/08 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

Case No. C 07-3950

ORDER GRANTING DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC ‘S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF A COMPLETE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

(JFEX3)

III. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that DAS’ motion to

intervene is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to compel

production of a complete administrative record is GRANTED.

DATED: August 26, 2008

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-03950-JF Document 67 Filed 08/26/08 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

Case No. C 07-3950

ORDER GRANTING DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC ‘S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF A COMPLETE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

(JFEX3)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Kristen Lee Boyles

kboyles@earthjustice.org

Aaron Colangelo

acolangelo@nrdc.org 

Joshua Osborne-Klein

josborne-klein@earthjustice.org

Virginia Elizabeth Ruiz

vruiz@farmworkerjustice.org 

Shelley Davis

sdavis@farmworkerjustice.org 

Patti Goldman

pgoldman@earthjustice.org 

Michael Meuter

mmeuter@crla.org 

Jonathan Gettleman

jgettleman@crla.org 

Norman Rave Jr.

norman.rave@usdoj.gov 

Laurence Andrew Weiss

lweiss@hewm.com 

David Weinberg

dweinberg@wileyrein.com 

Case 5:07-cv-03950-JF Document 67 Filed 08/26/08 Page 7 of 7