American Small Business League v. Department of Defense
Filing
79
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE by Judge William Alsup [granting 75 Motion to Intervene]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESS LEAGUE,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
14
15
16
17
No. C 14-02166 WHA
Defendant,
ORDER GRANTING
UNOPPOSED MOTION
TO INTERVENE
and
SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION,
Proposed Intervenor.
/
18
19
In this action under the Freedom of Information Act, third party Sikorsky Aircraft
20
Corporation moves to intervene. Plaintiff and defendant do not oppose. For the reasons that
21
follow, the motion to intervene is GRANTED.
22
This is an action by plaintiff American Small Business League against the Department
23
of Defense. On August 9, 2013, plaintiff filed a FOIA request seeking “[t]he most recent
24
comprehensive subcontracting plan submitted by Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation for participation
25
in the [DOD’s] Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan Test Program” (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 5).
26
The DOD denied the FOIA request on September 3. Plaintiff then initiated this action.
27
An order required the DOD to produce Sikorsky’s subcontracting plan to plaintiff by
28
December 3, 2014 (Dkt. No. 28 at 7). A subsequent order then granted Sikorsky’s motion
1
1
to intervene for the purpose of appealing the disclosure order (Dkt. No. 48). Our court
2
of appeals reversed the disclosure order. Am. Small Bus. League v. Dep’t of Defense,
3
No. 15-15120, 2017 WL 65399 (9th Cir. Jan. 6, 2017).
4
5
6
Sikorsky now seeks to intervene for all purposes under both FRCP 24(a) and
FRCP 24(b). This order addresses each in turn.
To intervene as a matter of right under FRCP 24(a), an applicant must establish that
7
(1) intervention is timely; (2) it has a “significant protectable interest” relating to the subject of
8
the action; (3) the action’s disposition “may, as a practical matter, impair or impede [its] ability
9
to protect its interest; and (4) the existing parties may not adequately represent [its] interests.”
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Citizens for Balanced Use v. Mont. Wilderness Ass’n, 647 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 2011).
The main issue is whether the DOD can adequately represent Sikorsky’s interests.
12
To determine the extent to which representation is adequate, courts consider “(1) whether the
13
interest of a present party is such that it will undoubtedly make all of a proposed intervenor’s
14
arguments, (2) whether the present party is capable and willing to make such arguments, and
15
(3) whether a proposed intervenor would offer any necessary elements to the proceeding that
16
other parties would neglect.” Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003).
17
The burden to show inadequate representation is typically “minimal,” however, if the applicant
18
and the existing party have the “same ultimate objective,” then representation is presumed to be
19
adequate. Sikorsky and the DOD have the same ultimate objective — to prevent disclosure of
20
Sikorsky’s subcontracting plan (see Dkt. No. 75 at 3).
21
The applicant must make a “compelling showing” to rebut the presumption.
22
Arakaki, 324 F.3d at 1086. Sikorsky fails to rebut this presumption. First, it is not enough
23
that Sikorsky may or may not make the “same arguments” or use the “same evidence” as
24
the DOD. Sikorsky does not explain how these potential variations in litigation strategy are
25
significant enough to justify intervention. See Perry v. Proposition 8 Official Proponents,
26
587 F.3d 947, 954 (9th Cir. 2009) (mere variations in litigation strategy are insufficient to
27
support intervention as a matter of right). Second, the fact that Sikorsky “can best explain” the
28
impact of the subcontracting plan’s disclosure does not mean that the DOD would neglect to
2
1
address this element. Rather, Sikorksy’s expertise is just a potential improvement. See Blake v.
2
Pallan, 554 F.2d 947, 955 (9th Cir. 1977) (benefits of factual knowledge can be obtained by an
3
amicus brief “rather than bought with the price of intervention”).
4
An applicant requesting permissive intervention under FRCP 24(b) must show (1) that
5
there are “independent grounds for jurisdiction; (2) the motion is timely; and (3) the applicant’s
6
claim or defense, and the main action, have a question of law or a question of fact in common.”
7
Nw. Forest Res. Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 839 (9th Cir. 1996).
8
9
First, the independent jurisdictional requirement does not apply here because Sikorsky is
requesting to intervene in a federal-question case and is not raising new claims. See Freedom
from Religion Found., Inc. v. Geithner, 644 F.3d 836, 844 (9th Cir. 2011) (proposed intervenors
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
in federal-question cases do not have to establish independent jurisdictional grounds when not
12
raising new claims). Second, timeliness is not an issue here because this action only recently
13
resumed progress following appeal of the disclosure order and Sikorsky’s intervention would
14
not prejudice the other parties. See United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 921–23
15
(9th Cir. 2004). Indeed, both sides have filed statements of non-opposition to Sikorsky’s motion
16
(Dkt. Nos. 76, 77). Third, Sikorsky will argue the subcontracting plan is exempt from
17
disclosure, which goes to the heart of this action (Dkt. No. 75-1 ¶ 13).
18
19
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to intervene is GRANTED.
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
Dated: June 1, 2017.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?