State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control v. Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc.

Filing 105

MEMORANDUM ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mountaire's Motion for Stay of Intervenors' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (D.I. 91) is GRANTED. All proceedings in this action are stayed, except for proceedings on DNREC's forthcoming Mo tion to Enter the First Amended Proposed Consent Decree. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that DNREC shall file its motion and supporting brief on or before August 17, 2020. The Court will hold a hearing on September 17, 2020 at 10:00 AM via videoconference. (*See Order for details). Signed by Judge Jennifer L. Hall on 8/10/2020. (ceg)

Case 1:18-cv-00838-MN-JLH Document 105 Filed 08/10/20 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 3008

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES &
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL,
Plaintiff,
and
GARY and ANNA-MARIE CUPPELS,
Plaintiffs-Intervenors,

v.
MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF
DELAWARE, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 18-838-MN-JLH

MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington, this 10th day of August, 2020:
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2019, the Court granted a Motion to Intervene in this matter
filed by Gary and Anna-Marie Cuppels (the “Intervenors”) (D.I. 16);
WHEREAS the Court’s Memorandum Opinion regarding intervention “decline[d] to
impose limitations on Intervenors’ participation at th[at] stage” because the case was then “at its
earliest stages” and “Intervenors’ full participation would not undo significant work in this
litigation or upend a schedule already in place” (D.I. 15 at 14);
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2019, Plaintiff State of Delaware Department of Natural
Resources & Environmental Control (“DNREC”) filed a Proposed Consent Decree that would
resolve its claims under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6901, et seq.

Case 1:18-cv-00838-MN-JLH Document 105 Filed 08/10/20 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 3009

(“RCRA”), and the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251, et seq. (“CWA”), against Defendant
Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc. (“Mountaire”) (D.I. 63);
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2019, the Court ordered Intervenors to file a letter stating
their objections to the Proposed Consent Decree, ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding
any such objections by January 24, 2020, and ordered the parties to file a joint status report on or
before January 31, 2020 (D.I. 67);
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2020, Intervenors filed a lengthy letter setting forth their
objections to the Proposed Consent Decree, along with 455 pages of supporting materials,
including eight expert reports;
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2020, this case was referred to the undersigned for pre-trial
proceedings (D.I. 71);
WHEREAS, between December 17, 2019 and May 29, 2020, the case remained stayed,
and the parties engaged in multiple meet-and-confers and filed multiple status reports (D.I. 73, 75,
77, 79, 81, 84);
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2020, Intervenors filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction against
Mountaire, which motion remains pending (D.I. 87);
WHEREAS, on May 29, 2020, DNREC filed a First Amended Proposed Consent Decree
that contains additional mitigation measures to address certain concerns raised by Intervenors
during the meet-and-confer process, as well as public comments on the Proposed Consent Decree
and First Amended Proposed Consent Decree that were received by DNREC during the public
comment periods (D.I. 92, 94);
WHEREAS DNREC has not yet moved the Court to enter the First Amended Proposed
Consent Decree;

2

Case 1:18-cv-00838-MN-JLH Document 105 Filed 08/10/20 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 3010

WHEREAS, on May 29, 2020, Mountaire filed a Motion for Stay of Intervenors’ Motion
for Preliminary Injunction or, in the Alternative, Motion for a Briefing Schedule (D.I. 91), which
motion remains pending;
WHEREAS Mountaire argues, among other things, that the Court should not issue an
injunction and should delay consideration of Intervenors’ request for an injunction because the
COVID-19 crisis has placed a strain on the nation’s food supply and Mountaire has been ordered
by the President to remain open in the interest of national security, and the same circumstances
make it difficult for Mountaire and counsel to adequately respond to the request for injunctive
relief;
WHEREAS the Court held a telephone status conference on July 6, 2020 and ordered
additional submissions from the parties regarding Intervenors’ entitlement to discovery prior to
the Court’s consideration of the First Amended Proposed Consent Decree;
WHEREAS the Court has carefully read and considered all of the parties’ recent filings
(D.I. 84-88, 90-95, 97, 99-104);
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mountaire’s Motion for Stay of
Intervenors’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (D.I. 91) is GRANTED. All proceedings in this
action are stayed, except for proceedings on DNREC’s forthcoming motion to enter the First
Amended Proposed Consent Decree.
1.

The citizen suit provision of the CWA “is meant to supplement rather than supplant

governmental action” and its legislative history provides that “[t]he Committee intends the great
volume of enforcement actions be brought by the State” and that the citizen suit is appropriate only
“if the Federal, State, and local agencies fail to exercise their enforcement responsibility.” See
Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc., 484 U.S. 49, 60 (quoting S. Rep. No.

3

Case 1:18-cv-00838-MN-JLH Document 105 Filed 08/10/20 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 3011

92-414, at 64 (1971)); Grp. Against Smog & Pollution, Inc. v. Shenango, Inc., 810 F.3d 116, 130
(3d Cir. 2016). The citizen suit provision of RCRA reflects the same policy. See Hallstrom v.
Tillamook County, 493 U.S. 20, 29 (1989).
2.

The First Amended Proposed Consent Decree sets forth the settlement agreement

between the State (DNREC) and Mountaire, regarding Mountaire’s liability under the CWA and
RCRA. This Court’s review of the First Amended Proposed Consent Decree is limited to ensuring
“that it is fair, adequate, and reasonable, as well as consistent with the public interest.” United
States v. Comunidades Unidas Contra La Contaminacion, 204 F.3d 275, 279 (1st Cir. 2000)
(reviewing an intervenor’s appeal from a consent decree resolving CWA and RCRA violations).
Pursuant to that standard of review, the Court does not look to see “whether the settlement is one
which the court itself might have fashioned, or considers as ideal, but whether the proposed decree
is fair, reasonable, and faithful to the objectives of the governing statute.” In re Tutu Water Wells
CERCLA Litig., 326 F.3d 201, 209 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Cannons Eng’g Corp.,
899 F.2d 79, 84 (1st Cir. 1990)). This Court does not have the power to modify or rewrite a
settlement to insert provisions it thinks are better.
3.

The parties’ joint status reports indicate that Intervenors had a substantial

opportunity to present their views on the proposed Consent Decree to DNREC and Mountaire
through the meet-and-confer process, and the record indicates that some of their objections were
addressed in the First Amended Proposed Consent Decree. Intervenors also had the opportunity
to object during the public comment period for the First Amended Proposed Consent Decree.
Moreover, Intervenors will have a full and fair opportunity to be heard by the Court on the First
Amended Proposed Consent Decree, through the process of filing of written objections and
supporting materials.

4

Case 1:18-cv-00838-MN-JLH Document 105 Filed 08/10/20 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 3012

4.

The Court finds it appropriate to stay proceedings on Intervenors’ Motion for

Preliminary Injunction while it considers the First Amended Proposed Consent Decree. If the
Court enters the First Amended Proposed Consent Decree, the case will be over. Intervenors’
request for a preliminary injunction will be barred under CWA and RCRA and/or will be rendered
moot. (D.I. 99 at 6-7.) See Shenango, 810 F.3d at 128-29; United States v. Metro. Water
Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chicago, 792 F.3d 821, 824 (7th Cir. 2015); Envtl. Conservation
Org. v. City of Dallas, 529 F.3d 519, 528-30 (5th Cir. 2008). A stay thus promotes judicial
economy. A stay does not disrupt the schedule, as no schedule has been entered. Nor will
Intervenors be unduly prejudiced, as their preliminary injunction motion would be barred by
operation of the CWA and RCRA, not because of any delay caused by a stay. Further, it appears
that the parties will not be in a position to have a hearing on Intervenors’ Motion for Preliminary
Injunction for six months. (D.I. 99 at 9-11.) The Court anticipates resolving any objections on
the First Amended Proposed Consent Decree in less time.
5.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mountaire’s request for an evidentiary hearing

on DNREC’s Motion for Entry of the First Amended Proposed Consent Decree is DENIED
without prejudice to renew. Intervenors do not have an unconditional right to an evidentiary
hearing on their objections to a consent decree. Comunidades Unidas Contra La Contaminacion,
204 F.3d at279; United States v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 952 F.2d 1040, 1044 (8th Cir.
1992) (“Once the intervenors had an opportunity to file objections to the proposed consent decree,
‘[t]here is little else that they could have done.’”) (quoting E.P.A. v. City of Green Forest, Ark.,
921 F.2d 1394, 1402 (8th Cir. 1990)). Nor does the Court believe that an evidentiary hearing will
be required here, particularly in view of the Court’s limited standard of review. That said, the

5

Case 1:18-cv-00838-MN-JLH Document 105 Filed 08/10/20 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 3013

Court may reconsider the need for an evidentiary hearing at the conclusion of the briefing, once it
understands what issues remain in dispute.
6.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mountaire’s request for discovery prior to the

Court’s consideration of the First Amended Proposed consent decree is DENIED. The Court finds
that permitting discovery at this time would be inappropriate and unnecessary, particularly in view
of the limited standard of review applicable to consent decrees and the fact that further discovery
will be unnecessary if the Court enters the First Amended Proposed Consent decree. 1 Intervenors’
objections to the original Proposed Consent Decree show that they are already in possession of a
substantial amount of evidence concerning Mountaire’s alleged past and continuing violations and
the adequacy of the proposed remediation and mitigation measures, and the Court is confident that
Intervenors will be able to adequately articulate their objections to the First Amended Proposed
Consent Decree. (D.I. 68, Exs. A-L.)
7.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that DNREC shall file its Motion to Enter the First

Amended Consent Decree and supporting brief on or before August 17, 2020. Further briefing
shall be in accordance with the Court’s Local Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The
Court will hold a hearing on DNREC’s motion on September 17, 2020 at 10 a.m. via
videoconference.

No later than September 14, 2020, the parties shall send an email to

[e-mail] containing (i) a videoconference link and/or instructions on
how to join the conference; (ii) a list of attendees for each side; and (iii) a separate audio-only dial-

1

The cases cited by Intervenors are inapposite, as those cases discussed intervenors’ rights
to discovery before trial. Columbus-America Discovery Grp. v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 974 F.2d
450, 470 (4th Cir. 1992); United States v. E. Shoshone Tribe, No. 10-cv-93, 2010 WL 11435111,
at *4 (D. Wyo. Dec. 15, 2010). Contrary to Intervenors’ argument, this Court’s resolution of
DNREC’s Motion to Enter the First Amended Proposed Consent Decree is not a “determination
on the merits.” (D.I. 102-1.) Rather, the Court’s role is to review the settlement between the State
and Mountaire.
6

Case 1:18-cv-00838-MN-JLH Document 105 Filed 08/10/20 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 3014

in number. The videoconference must be sufficient to accommodate Judge Hall, the courtroom
deputy, a law clerk, and the court reporter. Once the dial-in information is received by the Court,
members

of

the

public

may

obtain

it

by

contacting

Chambers

at

[e-mail]. All participants (including any media and members of the
public) are reminded that recording or broadcasting proceedings is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
All participants shall be present on the videoconference no later than 10 minutes prior to the start
of the hearing. Any slide presentations or demonstratives that the parties wish to use during the
hearing shall be emailed to [e-mail] no later than September 17, 2020.

Dated: August 10, 2020

___________________________________
Jennifer L. Hall
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7