Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01075/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01075-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
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

27

28

Fed. Defs.’ Request to Modify Settlement Conference Order & Proposed Order

Case No. C-06-1075 (CRB) (EDL) 1

KEVIN V. RYAN, United States Attorney (CA Bar No. 118321)

JAMES A. CODA, Assistant United States Attorney (WI Bar No. 1012669)

10th Floor Federal Building, Box 36055

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

San Francisco, California 94102

SUE ELLEN WOOLDRIDGE

Assistant Attorney General

JEAN E. WILLIAMS, Chief

SETH M. BARSKY, Assistant Chief

U.S. Department of Justice

Environment and Natural Resources Division

Wildlife and Marine Resources Section

KRISTEN BYRNES FLOOM, Trial Attorney (DC Bar No. 469615)

P.O. Box 7369

Washington, D.C. 20044-7369

Telephone: (202) 305-0210

Facsimile: (202) 305-0275

Kristen.Floom@usdoj.gov

GREGORY PAGE, Trial Attorney (DC Bar No. 398121)

U.S. Department of Justice

Environment and Natural Resources Division

General Litigation Section

P.O. Box 663

Washington, D.C. 20044-0663

Telephone: (202) 305-0446

Facsimile: (202) 305-0506

Gregory.Page@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Federal Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

GEERTSON SEED FARMS INC., et al.

Plaintiffs,

vs.

MIKE JOHANNS, et al.,

Defendants,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C-06-1075 (CRB) (EDL)

FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO

MODIFY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Date: August 31, 2006

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Judge: Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte

Case 3:06-cv-01075-CRB Document 28 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 1 of 7

AS MODIFIED

Case 3:06-cv-01075-CRB Document 30 Filed 08/03/06 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 1

 On July 26, 2006, Judge Breyer granted Defendant Johnson’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fourth

Claim for Relief (Doc. No. 13), the only claim raised against EPA. See Doc No. 27. Because there

are no remaining claims against EPA, the agency will not participate in the August 31 settlement

conference. 

Fed. Defs.’ Request to Modify Settlement Conference Order & Proposed Order

Case No. C-06-1075 (CRB) (EDL) 2

Pursuant to this Court’s June 23, 2006, Settlement Conference Order, lead counsel for

Federal Defendants must appear at the settlement conference with “the person or persons having full

authority to negotiate and settle the case.” Federal Defendants respectfully request that the Court

modify the portion of its Order concerning the attendance of representatives with full authority to

settle with respect to the United States. Federal Defendants are committed to engaging in

meaningful settlement discussions with Plaintiffs, and take their obligation to negotiate in good faith

very seriously. To that end, client representatives authorized to discuss and make recommendations

relating to settlement will be present at the settlement conference. However, Federal Defendants

respectfully advise the Court that the United States cannot agree to the attendance of persons with

ultimate settlement authority, for the reasons stated herein.

In this case, Defendants Mike Johanns, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(“USDA”); Ron DeHaven, Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(“APHIS”); and Steve Johnson, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(“EPA”) (collectively “Federal Defendants”) are sued in their official capacities.1

 With respect to

USDA and APHIS, settlement authority is vested in Cindy J. Smith, Deputy Administrator of

Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS. Ms. Smith oversees five distinct programs and offices,

including the Environmental Risk Analysis program, which is responsible for the decision at issue in

this case. Ms. Smith has a multitude of responsibilities, and it would not be feasible for her to

attend, or even participate by telephone in, settlement conferences in all of the cases in which she

has settlement authority. 

Case 3:06-cv-01075-CRB Document 28 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 2 of 7
 Case 3:06-cv-01075-CRB Document 30 Filed 08/03/06 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

Fed. Defs.’ Request to Modify Settlement Conference Order & Proposed Order

Case No. C-06-1075 (CRB) (EDL) 3

Moreover, as trial attorneys for the Wildlife & Marine Resources Section of the United

States Department of Justice, the lead attorneys in this case do not have the authority to compromise

the claims of the United States. Therefore, the lead attorneys do not have the ultimate authority to

agree to the terms of any proposed settlement. That authority is vested in the Attorney General of

the United States and, for environmental matters, has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney

General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the United States Department of

Justice. See 28 C.F.R. § 0.160. The Assistant Attorney General has ultimate settlement authority

for thousands of cases all over the country, and is not able to attend settlement conferences in all of

the cases in which she has settlement authority. 

The inability of the United States to send individuals with final settlement authority to

settlement conferences has been recognized by the Federal Rules Advisory Committee and

Congress. In enacting the 1993 Amendments to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

Advisory Committee noted that in litigation involving government agencies, “there may be no one

with on-the-spot settlement authority, and the most that should be expected is access to a person who

would have a major role in submitting a recommendation to the body or board with ultimate

decision-making responsibility.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, Advisory Committee Notes Subdivision (c)

(1993 Amendments). In enacting the Judicial Improvement Act of 1990, Congress expressly

recognized the “unique situation of the Department of Justice,” which reserves settlement authority

to senior officials, and noted that the Department “cannot realistically send officials with full

settlement authority to each settlement conference.” See H.R. Rep. 101-732 (September 1, 1990).

Federal Defendants believe that the goal of encouraging parties to engage in meaningful

settlement discussions can best be achieved by the participation of the lead attorneys, who are most

familiar with the case and have significant recommendation authority, as well as a representative

Case 3:06-cv-01075-CRB Document 28 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 3 of 7
 Case 3:06-cv-01075-CRB Document 30 Filed 08/03/06 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

Fed. Defs.’ Request to Modify Settlement Conference Order & Proposed Order

Case No. C-06-1075 (CRB) (EDL) 4

from Biotechnology Regulatory Services at APHIS. Counsel will promptly transmit settlement

proposals to the appropriate Federal officials and inform the Court of Federal Defendants’ response

or counter-proposal.

For the foregoing reasons, Federal Defendants respectfully request that the Court modify the

portion of its Settlement Conference Order requiring the attendance of representatives with full

authority to settle on behalf of the United States. Should the Court grant this request, the following

individuals will appear on behalf of Federal Defendants at the August 31, 2006, settlement

conference: 

Neil E. Hoffman, Ph.D 

Director, Environmental Risk Analysis Division

Biotechnology Regulatory Services

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Carlynne Cockrum

Office of General Counsel, Regulatory Division

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Kristen Byrnes Floom

U.S. Department of Justice 

Environment and Natural Resources Division

Wildlife and Marine Resources Section

Gregory D. Page

U.S. Department of Justice 

Environment and Natural Resources Division

Natural Resources Section 

Case 3:06-cv-01075-CRB Document 28 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 4 of 7
 Case 3:06-cv-01075-CRB Document 30 Filed 08/03/06 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

Fed. Defs.’ Request to Modify Settlement Conference Order & Proposed Order

Case No. C-06-1075 (CRB) (EDL) 5

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: July 28, 2006 KEVIN V. RYAN, United States Attorney

(CA Bar No. 118321)

JAMES A. CODA, Assistant United States

Attorney (WI Bar No. 1012669)

10th Floor Federal Building, Box 36055

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

San Francisco, California 94102

SUE ELLEN WOOLDRIDGE

Assistant Attorney General

JEAN E. WILLIAMS, Chief

SETH M. BARSKY, Assistant Chief

U.S. Department of Justice

Environment and Natural Resources

Division

Wildlife and Marine Resources Section

/s/ Kristen Byrnes Floom

KRISTEN BYRNES FLOOM, Trial

Attorney (DC Bar No. 469615)

P.O. Box 7369

Washington, D.C. 20044-7369

Telephone: (202) 305-0210

Facsimile: (202) 305-0275

Kristen.Floom@usdoj.gov

GREGORY PAGE, Trial Attorney (DC Bar

No. 398121)

U.S. Department of Justice

Environment and Natural Resources

Division

General Litigation Section

P.O. Box 663

Washington, D.C. 20044-0663

Telephone: (202) 305-0446

Facsimile: (202) 305-0506

Gregory.Page@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Federal Defendants

Case 3:06-cv-01075-CRB Document 28 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 5 of 7
 Case 3:06-cv-01075-CRB Document 30 Filed 08/03/06 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

Fed. Defs.’ Request to Modify Settlement Conference Order & Proposed Order

Case No. C-06-1075 (CRB) (EDL) 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

GEERTSON SEED FARMS INC., et al.

Plaintiffs,

vs.

MIKE JOHANNS, et al.,

Defendants,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C-06-1075 (CRB) (EDL)

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Having considered Federal Defendants’ Request to Modify Settlement Conference Order, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Request to Modify Settlement Conference Order is GRANTED,

and Federal Defendants are hereby excused from the requirement to appear at the August 31, 2006,

settlement conference with the person or persons having full authority to negotiate and settle the

case. 

Dated: ________________ ____________________________

Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01075-CRB Document 28 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 6 of 7

given permission the following representatives: Neil Hoffman, Carlynne Cockrum, Kristen Floom and Gregory Page. August 3, 2006

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

AS MODIFIED

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte

AS MODIFIED

Case 3:06-cv-01075-CRB Document 30 Filed 08/03/06 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

Fed. Defs.’ Request to Modify Settlement Conference Order & Proposed Order

Case No. C-06-1075 (CRB) (EDL) 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of Federal Defendants’ Request to Modify Settlement Conference

Order was submitted to the Court electronically on this 28th day of July, 2006, for filing and service

on the following parties:

William B. Rostov

wrostov@icta.org

Miyoko Sakashita

miyoko@icta.org 

Joseph Mendelson, III

joemend@icta.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

/s/ Kristen Byrnes Floom

Kristen Byrnes Floom

Case 3:06-cv-01075-CRB Document 28 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 7 of 7
 Case 3:06-cv-01075-CRB Document 30 Filed 08/03/06 Page 7 of 7