Food & Water Watch, Inc. et al v. Environmental Protection Agency et al
Filing
319
ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 306 Plaintiff's Motion to Lift the Stay and Take Case Out of Abeyance. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2022)
Case 3:17-cv-02162-EMC Document 319 Filed 10/28/22 Page 1 of 6
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
FOOD & WATER WATCH, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
8
9
10
11
Case No. 17-cv-02162-EMC
v.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY, et al.,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO LIFT THE STAY AND
TAKE CASE OUT OF ABEYANCE
Docket No. 306
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendants.
12
13
14
Plaintiff Food & Water Watch, Inc. (“FWW”) filed suit against Defendant Environmental
15
Protection Agency (“EPA”) after its administrative petition—requesting the initiation of
16
rulemaking pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. §2620 (“TSCA”) to prohibit
17
the addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water to protect the public from neurotoxic
18
risks—was denied by the agency. After a bench trial, the Court stayed the case. FWW filed a
19
motion to lift the stay and take the case out of abeyance.
20
21
22
23
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS FWW’s Motion to Lift Stay and Take the
Case Out of Abeyance with limited post-trial discovery.
I.
BACKGROUND
FWW is a national nonprofit advocacy organization that educates consumers about food
24
and water health safety. Docket No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 29–30. Its members live in fluoridated
25
communities across the United States. Compl. ¶ 31. In 2016, FWW petitioned EPA to initiate a
26
proceeding to issue a rule under 15 U.S.C. §2605 prohibiting the addition of fluoridation
27
chemicals to public drinking water supplies. Compl. ¶ 24. EPA denied the petition. Compl. ¶ 25.
28
FWW filed suit in district court for de novo review under 15 U.S.C. § 2620(b)(4)(B).
Case 3:17-cv-02162-EMC Document 319 Filed 10/28/22 Page 2 of 6
1
Compl. ¶ 106. After the parties engaged in fact and expert discovery, the Court held a 7-day
2
bench trial, which included extensive expert testimony regarding the state of the scientific research
3
on fluoride neurotoxicity. Docket No. 219, 238.
On August 10, 2020, the Court stayed the case over concerns about FWW’s standing.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
4
5
Docket No. 262 (“Stay Order”). The Court also explained that the stay would allow EPA to
6
consider scientific studies published after EPA’s denial of FWW’s administrative petition (e.g.,
7
pooled analysis of the ELEMENT/MIREC data,1 Spanish birth cohort study2) and allow the Court
8
to consider the imminent publication of the National Toxicology Program’s (“NTP”) systematic
9
review “Monograph on the Systematic Review of Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopmental and
10
Cognitive Health Effects.” Id. at 3–4. The Court directed FWW to “file a new petition with EPA
11
. . . to address the serious standing issues [and] afford EPA an opportunity to consider the
12
significant scientific developments that have occurred since the original petition was filed.” Id. at
13
4–5. FWW filed a supplemental administrative petition for reconsideration to the EPA. Docket
14
No. 270. EPA again denied the petition. Docket No. 278.
On September 12, 2022, FWW filed this motion to lift the stay and take the case out of
15
16
abeyance. Docket No. 306 (“MLS”). FWW asked the Court to consider supplemental allegations
17
about standing and the scientific developments that have occurred since the June 2020 trial,
18
including the ELEMENT/MIREC analysis, the Spanish study, and the most recent 2022 NTP draft
19
and peer reviews. EPA filed an opposition and cross-motion that the case should come out of
20
abeyance only to be decided on the June 2020 trial record. Docket No. 309 (“Opp.”). FWW filed
21
a reply. Docket No. 312 (“FWW’s Repl.”). EPA filed a reply in support of its cross-motion.
22
Docket No. 313 (“EPA’s Repl.”).
II.
23
The Court now lifts the stay. A district court has “broad discretion” to stay proceedings.
24
25
MOTION TO LIFT THE STAY
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 683 (1997). “The corollary to this power is the ability to lift a stay
26
27
1
Docket No. 291-1.
28
2
Docket No. 279, at 7; Docket No. 278-1, at 6–7.
2
Case 3:17-cv-02162-EMC Document 319 Filed 10/28/22 Page 3 of 6
1
previously imposed.” Boyle v. Cty. of Kern, No. 1:03-cv-05162, 2008 WL 220413, at *5 (E.D.
2
Cal. Jan. 25, 2008). “Courts within the Ninth Circuit have recognized that ‘the court may abandon
3
its imposed stay of litigation if the circumstances that persuaded the court to impose the stay in the
4
first place have changed significantly.’” Tribe v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, No. 19-CV-04405-
5
WHO, 2021 WL 4482117, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2021).
6
7
As a preliminary matter, FWW appears to have cured its standing defects. In its stay order,
this Court explained that it had serious concerns regarding standing:
8
[T]he evidence at trial focused on whether fluoride poses a threat of
neurotoxic harm during critical developmental periods, such as the
gestational and neonatal periods . . . None of the standing Plaintiffs
in this case claim to be subject to that risk of harm; there are no
allegations that the named Plaintiffs are pregnant, planning to
become pregnant, or caring for infants.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Stay Order, at 1–2. Since the stay was imposed, one of the Plaintiffs, Jessica Trader, became
13
pregnant with her first child in December 2020 and plans to have several more children. Docket
14
No. 279-1 ¶¶ 40–45. Ms. Trader’s pregnancy satisfies Article III standing. Article III standing
15
requires three elements: (1) an injury-in-fact that is concrete and particularized and actual or
16
imminent, (2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and (3)
17
probable redressability. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). Here, the
18
neurodevelopmental harm from fluoride exposure to Ms. Trader’s child and future children is
19
concrete and imminent; there is a credible causal connection between that neurodevelopmental
20
harm and EPA’s regulation of fluoride exposure or lack thereof; and the harm would likely be
21
redressed if EPA were to pass a rule prohibiting the addition of fluoridation chemicals to public
22
drinking water supplies. Indeed, EPA has not since filed any motion to dismiss for lack of
23
standing and previously conceded that standing would be satisfied by “someone who is an
24
expectant parent who—who could be consuming fluoridated water, and, and—that could have
25
potential effects on the baby she’s carrying in utero. It could be a potential—a parent, someone
26
with very young children.” Docket No. 133 at 14:9–17. FWW has satisfactorily addressed the
27
Court’s questions regarding standing such that a stay is no longer warranted based on standing
28
concerns.
3
Case 3:17-cv-02162-EMC Document 319 Filed 10/28/22 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
The Court lifts the stay without awaiting the publication of the final publication of the NTP
2
review. In granting and lifting stays, a court must weigh “the length of the stay against the
3
strength of the justification given for it.” Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). “If
4
a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, we require a greater showing to justify it.” Id.
5
“Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v.
6
Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). At the time the Court imposed the stay,
7
the Court explained that “release [of the final NTP review] . . . is imminent, and its findings are
8
likely to add substantially to the body of scientific analysis relevant to the precise questions before
9
this court.” Stay Order, at 4. But as of today, the circumstances no longer support awaiting the
10
final publication of the NTP review. First, the final publication is no longer “imminent” because
11
the NTP may never publish the final version. Here, EPA anticipates the following publication
12
timeline:
13
14
15
16
17
Looking forward, NTP currently anticipates that the membership of
the working group assisting the BSC with this review will be
finalized by November 2022 and that the working group can report
on its findings to the BSC [Board of Scientific Counselors] at a
public meeting in early 2023. Id. ¶ 7. After the BSC makes its
recommendations, Director Woychik will decide about potential
publication and dissemination of the State of the Science
Monograph and the Meta-Analysis Manuscript. Id. ¶ 8.
18
Opp. at 10 (citing Docket No. 309-1 (Declaration of Richard Woychik (“Woychik Decl.”))). NTP
19
Director Woychik’s statements indicate that publication is not guaranteed. Woychik Decl. ¶ 8.
20
Woychik may decide that the review has no publication potential and should not be disseminated,
21
though the likelihood and timing of publication is a matter which may warrant further
22
examination, including potential examination of Director Woychik. While an “indefinite” stay is
23
not necessarily fatal to maintaining a stay, EPA does not provide a “great showing to justify it.”
24
Yong, 208 F.3d at 1119.
25
Second, the Court’s decision to wait because scientific developments prior to the final
26
publication would “shed important light on the issues contested in this case” no longer carries as
27
much weight. Stay Order, at 4. The two relevant scientific studies (e.g., the ELEMENT/MIREC
28
analysis, the Spanish study) have since been published in peer reviewed journals. The NTP
4
Case 3:17-cv-02162-EMC Document 319 Filed 10/28/22 Page 5 of 6
1
systematic review has since undergone three additional rounds of peer review, resulting in a
2
revised May 2022 draft. The Court lifts the stay to permit discovery—focused on obtaining the
3
May 2022 draft to share with the parties and the Court so that the Court may assess future
4
scheduling (including whether the next phase of trial should await the final publication of the NTP
5
report).
The Court rejects EPA’s suggestion that all post-trial scientific developments should be
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6
7
excluded from consideration and that the case should be decided now on the trial record from the
8
June 2020 bench trial. Opp. at 1. The evolving science and the narrow, targeted scope of
9
discovery warrant consideration of the scientific developments; that was a primary purpose of the
10
Court’s stay. See City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 866 F.3d 1060, 1072 (9th Cir. 2017)
11
(holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen discovery and
12
constraining the evidence to an outdated 2011 scientific report when, by 2015, “[t]he record
13
demonstrates that the science of stable isotope analysis evolved significantly during this case’s
14
first journey through the appellate system”). Indeed, the revised May 2022 NTP review appears to
15
be relevant and could be relied upon by experts under the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Fed. R.
16
Evid. 702, 703.
Thus, FWW’s motion to lift the stay is GRANTED. Without opining upon the
17
18
admissibility or weight of the evidence, the Court lifts the stay to allow for production of the May
19
2022 NTP draft review subject to a protective order, as the government has properly stated a
20
concern that an unpublished draft should not be disseminated to the public at this juncture.
21
Having the draft review will help the Court determine future scheduling. The Court lifts the stay
22
to permit commencement of expert review of the new scientific evidence. However, the timing of
23
further expert disclosures and depositions should await further scheduling by this Court.
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
5
Case 3:17-cv-02162-EMC Document 319 Filed 10/28/22 Page 6 of 6
1
2
3
The Court sets a further status conference to discuss future scheduling for January 10,
2023, at 2:30 p.m. via Zoom. The parties shall file a joint status report by January 3, 2023.
This order disposes of Docket No. 306.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
Dated: October 28, 2022
8
9
10
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?