Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06663/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06663-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CENTRAL VALLEY CHRYSLER-JEEP )

INC., et al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

CATHERINE E. WITHERSPOON, )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-04-6663 REC/LJO

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO

INTERVENE BY SIERRA CLUB,

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE

COUNCIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL

DEFENSE AND BY BLUEWATER

NETWORK, GLOBAL EXCHANGE,

AND RAINWATER FOREST ACTION

NETWORK (Docs. 17 & 26) 

On July 25, 2005, the court heard the respective motions to

intervene filed by Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense

Council, and Environmental Defense and by Bluewater Network,

Global Exchange, and Rainforest Action Network. 

Upon due consideration of the arguments and the record

herein, the court grants the respective motions to intervene.

On December 7, 2004, plaintiffs filed a Complaint for

Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against defendant. On February

16, 2005, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC). 

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 141 Filed 10/21/05 Page 1 of 19
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

2

Plaintiffs in the FAC include the following automobile

dealerships located in Modesto, Turlock, Merced, Madera, Lemoore,

Tulare, and Porterville: Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep, Inc.;

Kitahara Pontiac GMC Buick, Inc.; Madera Ford Mercury, Inc.;

Madera Chevrolet; Frontier Dodge, Inc.; Tom Fields Motors, Inc.;

Pistoresi Chrysler Dodge Jeep; Bob Williams Chevrolet; Courtesy

Oldsmobile Cadillac, Inc.; Merle Stone Chevrolet, Inc.; Merle

Stone Porterville, Inc.; Sturgeon and Beck Incorporated; and

Swanson Fahrney Ford, Inc. General Motors Corporation and

DaimlerChrysler Corporation are also plaintiffs. The Tulare

County Farm Bureau and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

are also plaintiffs. The defendant is Catherine E. Witherspoon

in her official capacity as Executive Officer of the California

Air Resources Board.

The FAC alleges that it is an action for declaratory and

injunctive relief under the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the

United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The FAC

challenges the requirements of A.B. 1493, codified at California

Health and Safety Code § 43018.5, and the regulation proposed by

the California Air Resources Board (CARB) set forth in Resolution

No. 04-28, dated September 24, 2004. The FAC alleges that CARB

has interpreted the statute to require the adoption and

enforcement of rules to limit the release of carbon dioxide from

new motor vehicles sold in California beginning in the 2009 model

year, which starts in calendar year 2008. The FAC, which is very

verbose, alleges the following claims for declaratory and

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 141 Filed 10/21/05 Page 2 of 19
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

3

injunctive relief:

1. Count I - Preemption under the Energy

Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),

49 U.S.C. §§ 329021-32919, specifically

Section 32919(a).

2. Count II - Preemption under § 209(a) of

the Federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §

7543(a).

3. Count III - Preemption under the foreign

policy of the United States and the foreign

affairs powers of the Federal Government.

4. Count IV - Violation of the Dormant

Commerce Clause of the United States

Constitution.

5. Count V - Violation of the Sherman Act,

15 U.S.C. § 1.

The FAC prays for a declaratory judgment that “the regulation

adopted by CARB and Defendant on September 24, 2004, in

Resolution 04-28 violates federal law” and for a preliminary and

permanent injunction enjoining Defendant “from implementing or

enforcing the regulation adopted by CARB in Resolution 04-28, or

any substantially similar regulation.”

The Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, and

Environmental Defense (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the

Sierra Club Applicants) have filed a motion to intervene in this

action as party defendants pursuant to Rule 24, Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. 

In addition, Bluewater Network, Global Exchange, and

Rainforest Action Network (hereinafter sometimes referred to as

the Bluewater Applicants) have filed a motion to intervene in

this action as party defendants pursuant to Rule 24.

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 141 Filed 10/21/05 Page 3 of 19
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

4

The Sierra Club is a national nonprofit environmental

organization with approximately 700,000 members, including

thousands of members in California. The Sierra Club is dedicated

to exploring, enjoying and protecting the wild places of the

earth; to practicing and promoting the responsible use of the

earth’s ecosystems and resources; to educating and enlisting

humanity to protect and restore the quality of natural and human

environments; and to using all lawful means to carry out these

objectives. One of Sierra Club’s major programs is its national

Global Warming and Energy Campaign, which seeks to promote

solutions to global warming using current and cutting edge

technologies, and securing promulgation of the proposed

regulatory amendments set forth in Resolution 04-28 (referred to

by the movants as the “Pavley regulations”) was among the top

priorities of this campaign. 

National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has approximately

489,000 members, with 94,000 members in California. NRDC uses

law, science and the support of its members to protect wildlife

and wild places and to ensure a safe and healthy environment for

all living things. One of NRDC’s top priorities is to reduce air

pollution that endangers public health and welfare and causes

global warming.

Environmental Defense (ED) has over 400,000 members

nationally, with more than 30,000 in California. ED specializes

in the development of innovative, scientifically sound, marketbased solutions to environmental problems. ED works extensively

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 141 Filed 10/21/05 Page 4 of 19
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

5

on the international, national and state level to address the

causes and effects of global warming through its Climate and Air

Program.

Bluewater Network is a national non-profit organization

dedicated to finding innovative solutions to protecting the

earth’s finite resources, including halting global warming and

reducing air and water pollution. Bluewater Network has over

8,000 member, including 3,000 members in California. A focal

point of Bluewater Network’s activities is the Global Warming

Campaign, which, in January 2001, launched the idea to regulate

greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles in California.

Global Exchange (GX) is a San Francisco-based human rights

organization that promote environmental, political, and social

justice. GX has 15,000 members in the United States, including

5,000 members in California. Several of GX’s programs target

global warming and climate change, including the Jumpstart Ford

campaign and the Clean Car campaign. Through these programs, GX

promotes the use of alternative-fuel vehicles, including electric

and hybrid-electric vehicles, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Rainforest Action Network (RAN) is a non-profit organization

that advocates protection of forests and their natural

ecosystems. RAN has 15,000 members in the United States of which

approximately 10,000 are Californians. RAN’s Zero Emission

Campaign endeavors to halt global climate change by encouraging

the automotive industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

All of the applicants for intervention supported the

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 141 Filed 10/21/05 Page 5 of 19
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

6

proposed regulatory amendments during the legislative and

administrative processes that led to their passage. Their

respective staffs’ lobbied to secure the passage of A.B. 1493. 

Sierra Club, NRDC, ED, and Bluewater Network were recognized as

“co-sources” of the bill. Sierra Club, NRDC, ED and Bluewater

Network testified at CARB’s hearings on the proposed regulatory

amendments, and all applicants have worked to educate the public

about the importance of A.B. 1493 and the proposed regulatory

amendments. 

A. Intervention As Of Right.

Rule 24(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs

intervention as of right, provides in pertinent part:

Upon timely application anyone shall be

permitted to intervene in an action ... when

the applicant claims an interest relating to

the property or transaction which is the

subject of the action and the applicant is so

situated that the disposition of the action

may as a practical matter impair or impede

the applicant’s ability to protect that

interest, unless the interest is adequately

protected by existing parties.

An applicant may intervene as of right pursuant to Rule

24(a) if the following elements are satisfied: (1) the motion

must be timely; (2) the applicant must have a “significant

protectable interest” relating to the property or transaction

which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be

situated such that disposition of the action may as a practical

matter impair or impede its ability to protect that interest; and

(4) the applicant’s interest must be inadequately represented by

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 141 Filed 10/21/05 Page 6 of 19
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

7

the parties to the action. Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1049

(9 Cir. 1999). The court must interpret the rule broadly in th

favor of intervention. Forest Conservation Council v. U.S.

Forest Service, 66 F.3d 1489, 1493 (9 Cir. 1995). th

There is no dispute by plaintiffs that these applications

for intervention are timely, that these applicants have a

significant protectable interest in the subject of this action,

and that the disposition of this action may impair or impede the

applicants’ ability to protect that interest.

Therefore, the focus of these motions is on the final

requirement, i.e., that the applicants’ interest will be

inadequately represented by the Executive Director of CARB.

With respect to this factor, the Ninth Circuit sets forth

the following standards in Southwest Center for Biological

Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 822-823 (9 Cir. 2001): th

In determining whether a would-be

intervener’s interests will be adequately

represented by an existing party, courts

consider:

(1) whether the interest of a

present party is such that it will

undoubtedly make all the

intervener’s arguments; (2) whether

the present party is capable and

willing to make such arguments; and

(3) whether the would-be intervener

would offer any necessary elements

to the proceedings that the other

parties would neglect.

... The prospective intervener bears the

burden of demonstrating that the existing

parties may not adequately represent its

interest ... However, the burden of showing

inadequacy is ‘minimal,’ and the applicant

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 141 Filed 10/21/05 Page 7 of 19
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

8

need only show that representation of its

interests by existing parties ‘may be’

inadequate. In assessing the adequacy of

representation, the focus should be on the

‘subject of the action,’ not just the

particular issues before the court at the

time of the motion.

However, “‘a presumption of adequate representation generally

arises when the representative is a governmental body or officer

charged by law with representing the interests of the absentee.’” 

Forest Conservation Center v. U.S. Forest Service, 66 F.3d 1489,

1499 (9 Cir. 1995). In Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, th

1086 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1017 (2003), further th

explained:

The most important factor in determining the

adequacy of representation is how the

interest compares with the interests of

existing parties ... When an applicant for

intervention and an existing party have the

same ultimate objective, a presumption of

adequacy of representation arises ... If the

applicant’s interest is identical to that of

one of the present parties, a compelling

showing should be required to demonstrate

inadequate representation ....

There is also an assumption of adequacy when

the government is acting on behalf of a

constituency that it represents ... In the

absence of a ‘very compelling showing to the

contrary,’ it will be presumed that a state

adequately represents its citizens when the

applicant shares the same interest ... Where

the parties share the same ultimate

objective, differences in litigation strategy

do not normally justify intervention. ....

The Bluewater Applicants contend that, if allowed to

intervene, they intend to present an argument that defendant has

stated she does not currently intend to include that the

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 141 Filed 10/21/05 Page 8 of 19
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

9

Bluewater Network applicants believe is “fundamental to

preventing preemption of the Greenhouse Gas Statute”, to wit:

that manufacturers may comply with the

Greenhouse Gas regulations by producing

vehicles, such as plug-in hybrid electric

vehicles, that rely on electricity or other

non-gas powered sources, the regulation of

which does not related to fuel economy

standards ... CARB’s history of focusing on

gas powered vehicles, and its failure to make

this critical argument, demonstrate that the

Bluewater Applicant’s interests will not be

adequately represented by CARB.

In the reply brief, the Bluewater Applicants expand on their

position that defendant will not adequately represent their

interests:

The difference of interest between CARB and

Bluewater Applicants has been demonstrated in

the history of the Greenhouse Gas Law and the

drafting of its regulations. Since the time

that Bluewater Network first drafted and

began to work to pass the Greenhouse Gas Law,

it has been the primary and most vocal

advocate for non-gas powered vehicle as a

method of compliance. In contrast,

throughout the development of the Greenhouse

Gas regulations, CARB has failed to seriously

consider the possibility that automakers can

achieve emissions reduction targets solely

with the use of non-gas powered vehicles. 

Based on that assumption, CARB has

consistently been more focused on developing

methods of compliance for gas powered

vehicles ....

It is only through Bluewater Network’s

persistence through written and oral

presentations and comments, discussions with

CARB staff, and contributions of technical

information and studies, that CARB has made

non-gas powered vehicles a more meaningful

compliance option ... For instance, at

Bluewater’s request, CARB changed its

regulations to account for upstream

greenhouse gas emissions for non-gas powered

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 141 Filed 10/21/05 Page 9 of 19
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

10

vehicles rather than waiting until 20,000

non-gas powered vehicles were on the

California roads, as first proposed by CARB

... This full accounting created appropriate

incentives for vehicles with the highest

climate benefit ... Bluewater’s comments and

information also resulted in the elimination

of 1.2 discount factor for alternative

compliance, eliminating an unfair

disadvantage for such technologies;

guaranteed automakers credit for the

electricity use in a plug-in hybrid, giving

them the certainty necessary to invest in

this new technology; and prompted CARB to

give manufacturers credit for emission

reductions as a result of electricity use in

the first year of the program, rather than

the second year, as initially proposed by

CARB ....

CARB’s defense of the Greenhouse Gas

Regulations retains this same narrow focus. 

CARB’s attorneys have stated that they

currently do not intend to include an

argument that Bluewater Applicant’s believe

is fundamental to preventing preemption of

the Greenhouse Gas Statute: that

manufacturers may comply with the Greenhouse

Gas Regulations by producing vehicles, such

as plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, that

rely on electricity or other non-gas powered

sources, the regulation of which does not

relate to fuel economy standards ... CARB’s

history of focusing on gas powered vehicles,

and its failure to make this critical

argument, demonstrate that the Bluewater

Applicant’s interests will not be adequately

represented by CARB ....

The Bluewater Applicants further argue that defendant will not

adequately represent their interests:

The Bluewater Applicants also have a

particular expertise and knowledge base in

non-gas powered vehicles that CARB does not

possess. This will be critical in raising,

developing, and fully fleshing out necessary

arguments, including that the Regulations are

not preempted because non-gas powered

vehicles are a viable compliance option. 

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 141 Filed 10/21/05 Page 10 of 19
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

In contending that they have satisfied this factor, the 1

Sierra Club applicants assert that they will be making at least one

major dispositive argument in defense of the proposed regulatory

amendments that defendant will not be making, to wit: that their

proposed motion to dismiss “challenges the ripeness of the instant

dispute, based on the fact that the regulations have not been

finalized for adoption and CARB will likely seek a waiver from the

EPA if the finalized regulations are found to be preempted under

Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act.” However, one of the grounds

for dismissal of this action raised by defendant in her motion to

dismiss is the exact argument described by applicants. Therefore,

to the extent that the applicants contend that this factor is

satisfied by defendant’s failure to raise this proposed ground for

dismissal, it is belied by defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Furthermore, because the regulations have been finally approved by

California’s Office of Administrative Law, the issue of ripeness is

now moot. 

11

This expertise will also be necessary in

addressing Plaintiffs’ arguments that it is

too difficult, too costly, or impossible to

comply with the Greenhouse Gas Regulations,

especially with regard to the non-gas powered

compliance pathway. Just as Bluewater

provided an in-depth and independent analysis

of the costs of non-gas vehicle compliance

options that CARB relied on extensively ...,

so too can Bluewater Applicants fulfill such

particularized needs in the course of this

litigation. CARB does not have limitless

man-hours or a limitless budget to devote to

this litigation. When faced with a mountain

of factual evidence submitted by the many

plaintiffs in this action, CARB will have to

make choices about how and what to address. 

Because CARB’s priorities and interests

differ from Bluewater Applicants’ interests,

Bluewater Applicants’ position will not be

fully represented.

The Sierra Club applicants also argue that they have

satisfied this factor because their interests and those of

defendant are clear and distinct. Applicants contend: 1

Sierra Club Applicants seek to promote

environmental welfare both in and outside the

state of California ....

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 141 Filed 10/21/05 Page 11 of 19
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

12

Meanwhile, California’s greenhouse gas

emission law specifically ‘[r]equires the

board to consider the technological

feasibility of the regulations and the

impacts of the regulations on the economy of

the state, including specified job, business,

and competitive impacts.’ ... And ‘[t]he Air

Resources Board’s (ARB) mission is to promote

and protect the public health, welfare and

ecological resources through the effective

and efficient reduction of air pollutants in

recognition and consideration of the effects

on the economy of the state.’ ...

Accordingly, CARB’s primary obligation is to

consider the interests of California’s

citizenry, including economic and public

welfare concerns. However, many of these

interests are different and conflict with

Sierra Club Applicants’ interests in

prioritizing the environment. ...

In addition to their shared interest in

protecting California’s citizens and

resources, Sierra Club Applicants have

interests in protecting public health and

environmental resources outside of California

- an interest CARB lacks ... Sierra Club

Applicants have a national presence and

scope. CARB does not. It has no presence or

legal authority or standing outside of

California, and no obligation to consider

environmental issues not directly affecting

California. CARB’s purported interest in

other states and countries adopting its

standards does not establish a national or

global interest, nor do its talks with the

Canadian government ....

Furthermore, Sierra Club Applicants’ concerns

regarding CARB’s inability to adequately

represent their interests are based on actual

instances in which CARB has refused to

advocate environmental protection. For

example, CARB has declined to enforce zeroemission vehicles mandates, thereby

preventing other states from adopting these

mandates. ....

...

The disparities in interests between Sierra

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 141 Filed 10/21/05 Page 12 of 19
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

13

Club Applicants and CARB translate into

disparities in defending the Greenhouse Gas

Regulations. CARB is legally required to

prioritize economic and other public

interests of the California citizenry. 

However, Sierra Club Applicants seek to

protect public interests nationwide, and

environmental protection is their focal

point. Sierra Club Applicants respectfully

submit that they will defend the legislation

with equal or greater vigor than CARB.

In addition to their disparate interests,

Sierra Club Applicants have greater access to

a broad range of expertise regarding

environmental issues than CARB ... Because of

their singular focus, concentration of

resources, and national scope, the applicants

have a more comprehensive understanding of

national and global environmental issues. 

Such expertise is needed in this case, as the

issue of how the Greenhouse Gas Regulations

differ from fuel economy regulation is a

complex technical determination requiring a

global knowledge of environmental issues. 

Sierra Club Applicants are uniquely

positioned to assist the Court in making

these crucial determinations.

Given these disparities in obligations and

expertise, it is certainly not beyond doubt

that CARB will make all of Sierra Club

Applicants’ arguments in this action ... In

fashioning appropriate relief and in

settlement discussions (if any), CARB may

have to compromise on issues that the

applicants would not, because it must limit

itself to the interests of California’s

citizens and cannot consider the interests of

Sierra Club Applicants’ members in other

states.

The court concludes that the applicants have established

this factor under the minimal showing required by the decisions

cited above. This is especially true with the Sierra Club

Applicants. It is clear that both the defendant and the

applicants share the same ultimate objective in this litigation,

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 141 Filed 10/21/05 Page 13 of 19
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

14

i.e., to defend these amendments against the challenges to their

legality based on the preemptive effect of federal laws and based

on the alleged violations of federal laws. Defendant is acting

to defend in this lawsuit on behalf of the constituency that it

represents, i.e., the citizens of this state. Applicants admit

that part of their membership includes this constituency. 

Although the applicants argue that their expertise demonstrates

that defendant’s defense of these regulations will not be

adequate, CARB is the state agency charged by law to promulgate

and enforce regulations pertaining to the quality of air in

California. Applicants make no showing that defendant is not

experienced in this area or that defendant’s expertise is not

sufficiently developed to adequately defend the proposed

regulatory amendments against the challenges made by plaintiffs

in this litigation. Nonetheless, the applicants have

demonstrated that they intend to raise arguments that will not be

raised by defendant. Thus, the Bluewater Applicants have

demonstrated that defendant will not present the argument that

manufacturers may comply with the proposed regulation by

producing vehicles the regulation of which does not related to

fuel economy standards, thereby preventing preemption. The

Sierra Club Applicants have demonstrated that they will raise a

ripeness challenge to this court’s subject matter jurisdiction

immediately based on the defendant’s failure to seek a waiver

from the EPA. The court concludes that these positions are more

than a difference in litigation strategy, especially given the

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 141 Filed 10/21/05 Page 14 of 19
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

15

Ninth Circuit’s position that public interest groups are entitled

as of right to intervene in an action challenging the legality of

measures they have supported. See Idaho Farm Bureau Federation

v. Babbitt, 58 F.3d 1392, 1397 (9 Cir. 1995). th

B. Permissive Intervention.

Even if the court’s conclusion that these applicants are

entitled to intervention as of right is erroneous, the court

concludes that these applicants are entitled to permissive

intervention.

Permissive intervention is governed by Rule 24(b):

Upon timely application anyone may be

permitted to intervene in an action ... when

an applicant’s claim or defense and the main

action have a question of law or fact in

common ... In exercising its discretion the

court shall consider whether the intervention

will unduly delay or prejudice the

adjudication of the rights of the original

parties.

An applicant who seeks permissive intervention must demonstrate

that it meets three threshold requirements: (1) it shares a

common question of law or fact with the main action; (2) its

motion is timely; and (3) the court has an independent basis for

jurisdiction over the applicant’s claims. Donnelly v. Glickman,

159 F.3d 405, 412 (9 Cir. 1998). “Even if the applicant th

satisfies those threshold requirements, the district court has

discretion to deny permissive intervention ... In exercising its

discretion, the district court must consider whether intervention

will unduly delay the main action or will unfairly prejudice the

existing parties.” Id. 

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 141 Filed 10/21/05 Page 15 of 19
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

16

There is no dispute that the applicants satisfy the three

threshold requirements. 

Plaintiffs oppose permissive intervention for these

applicants on the ground that their intervention will increase

the number of briefs in support of defendant on any given motion

or issue, much of which will be repetitious. In addition,

plaintiffs argue that there is a substantial risk of disputes,

undue delay, and prejudice to existing parties if the applicants

try to use party status in order to obtain access to the

financial records and product plans of the various plaintiffs,

including those plaintiffs who have provided confidential

business information under seal. Plaintiffs represent that they

and defendant are currently working on the terms of a protective

order to govern defendant’s access to and use of that

confidential information. Plaintiffs assert that such a

protective order will protect their interests in confidentiality

because the protective order would limit access to the relevant

confidential information to State officials, “who are accustomed

to handling such information and maintaining its

confidentiality.” However, plaintiffs assert:

In contrast, plaintiffs do not believe that

the confidential business information such as

that filed under seal should be made

available to the Applicants or that a

Protective Order would provide adequate

safeguards for the disclosure of such

material to the Applicants. For example, the

material filed under seal to date relates to

such issues as manufacturers’ product plans,

lead-time requirements, cost projections, and

dealers’ financial outlook. Although this

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 141 Filed 10/21/05 Page 16 of 19
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

17

information is highly sensitive, plaintiffs

recognize that defendant must have some

access to it, with appropriate court-ordered

limitations. Defendant’s motion to dismiss

or transfer this action is based on various

assumptions about how the industry will

respond to the A.B. 1493 regulations and how

CARB’s rule affects the dealer plaintiffs and

others. Defendant needs to be able to

understand how the facts contained in

plaintiffs’ confidential business information

conflicts with her assumptions. Applicants,

on the other hand, are not involved in the

motion to dismiss or transfer, and have no

compelling interest in access to confidential

business information.

When the case proceeds to the merits,

plaintiffs cannot conceive of any arrangement

for the treatment of confidential information

that would provide adequate protection

against the potential disclosure or misuse of

the information in these filings by

Applicants, other than an Order that limits

access to confidential information to

defendant and appropriate representatives of

defendant. Disclosing confidential

information to defendant under appropriate

conditions means disclosing it to State

officials whose duties require them to review

confidential business information on a

regular basis, and who have longstanding

protocols in place to protect against

disclosure or improper use of information. 

Such is not the case with Applicants. 

Applicants are private organizations that are

not accustomed to handling information of

this type, and whose interests and abilities

to preserve its confidentiality may be

compromised by other competing interests.

The applicants for intervention respond that plaintiffs’

concern over “substantial repetition” of arguments and briefs is

overstated, noting that many litigations involve more than one

party. The Sierra Club Applicants are represented by a single

national law firm that is represented to have over fifty years

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 141 Filed 10/21/05 Page 17 of 19
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

18

experience in handling complex and sensitive litigation. 

Furthermore, the applicants note, they have coordinated their

efforts by filing a single reply brief in support of the two

motions for intervention, thereby minimizing concerns that the

parties and the court will be faced with responding to or

reviewing multiple briefs saying essentially the same things. 

The applicants for intervention also respond to plaintiffs’

assertion that the applicants cannot be trusted to keep

confidential information confidential as absurd, contending that

counsel for the respective applicants have been parties to

numerous cases involving protective orders in a broad range of

complex litigation matters. The applicants further note that

protective orders may be crafted to suit the needs of particular

parties, i.e., that the parties may agree to only grant access to

specified confidential material.

The court concludes that the applicants also have

demonstrated that they are entitled to permissive intervention. 

However, in so concluding, the court expresses its concern

about the risk of undue delay. The amount of paper already 

generated in this case is staggering and includes not only the

briefs pro and con, but numerous declarations and evidentiary

submissions, objections to those declarations and/or evidence,

and responses to those objections. In order to prevent the court

and the parties from being overwhelmed, the court will require

these Applicants to coordinate their positions with defendant and

to only file motions and/or briefs if the defendant refuses to

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 141 Filed 10/21/05 Page 18 of 19
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

19

make an argument that the applicants consider relevant. In

imposing this requirement, the court cautions that merely because

counsel for the applicants believe that they can word an argument

better or that there may be a case that could be cited but was

not, counsel for applicants should not file a separate brief. 

ACCORDINGLY:

1. The motions to intervene filed by Sierra Club, Natural

Resources Defense Council, and Environmental Defense and by

Bluewater Network, Global Exchange, and Rainforest Action Network

are granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 20, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 141 Filed 10/21/05 Page 19 of 19