CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY et al v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM OPINION accompanying 36 Order. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 3/26/24. (lcckk3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, et al.,
Defendants,

Civil Action No. 23-1633 (CKK)

CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE, LLC,
and
CROPLIFE AMERICA,
Defendant-Intervenors.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(March 26, 2024)
Plaintiffs Center for Food Safety, Pesticide Action Network North America, and Alianza
Nacional de Campesinas (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Defendant United States
Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and EPA Administrator, Michael S. Regan, alleging
that the EPA’s decisions to renew registrations for herbicides Enlist One and Enlist Duo and to
remove restrictions from their product labels violate the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) and the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”).
Presently before the Court are the [12] Motion to Intervene by Corteva Agriscience, LLC
(“Corteva”) and [17] Motion to Intervene by CropLife America (“CropLife”).
Corteva seeks to intervene as of right as a defendant in accordance with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 24(a), or in the alternative, to permissively intervene in accordance with Rule
24(b). Corteva’s Mot. at 2. Defendants do not oppose Corteva’s motion, id. at 3; Plaintiffs also

1

do not oppose the motion, but seek to impose restrictions on intervention, Pl.’s Opp’n at 1.
CropLife likewise seeks to intervene as of right as a defendant in accordance with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), or in the alternative, to permissively intervene in accordance with
Rule 24(b). CropLife’s Mot. at 1. Defendants do not oppose their motion, id. at 3; Plaintiffs ask
the Court to deny CropLife’s motion, Pl.’s Opp’n at 2.
Upon consideration of the motions, the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a
whole,1 the Court finds that Corteva is entitled to intervene as a matter of right under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 24(a). Accordingly, the Court shall GRANT Corteva’s [12] Motion to
Intervene. The Court finds that CropLife has not satisfied the requirements for intervention as of
right under Rule 24(a), nor do the circumstances warrant permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).
Accordingly, the Court shall DENY CropLife’s [17] Motion to Intervene.
I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are nonprofit organizations dedicated to protecting the environment and public
health. Compl. ¶ 22. They are challenging the EPA’s decisions to renew the registrations for
herbicides Enlist One and Enlist Duo and to remove application restrictions from Enlist One and
Enlist Duo product labels, arguing that these decisions violate both FIFRA and the ESA. Id. ¶ 1.
Enlist One and Enlist Duo are herbicides that contain 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid

The Court’s consideration has focused on the following:
• Plaintiffs’ Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No, 1;
• Corteva’s Motion to Intervene (“Corteva’s Mot.”), ECF No. 12;
• CropLife’s Motion to Intervene (“CropLife’s Mot.”), ECF No. 17;
• Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Corteva and CropLife’s Motions to Intervene (“Pls.’ Opp’n”),
ECF No. 20;
• Corteva’s Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene (“Corteva’s Reply”), ECF No. 21;
• CropLife’s Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene (“CropLife’s Reply”), ECF No. 22.
In an exercise of its discretion, the Court finds that holding oral argument in this action would
not be of assistance in rendering a decision. See LCvR 7(f).
1

2

choline salt (“2,4-D”). Id. ¶ 63. Enlist Duo also contains another active ingredient, glyphosate
dimethylammonium salt (“glyphosate”). Id. Both Enlist products are approved for controlling
weeds in corn, soybean, and cotton operations in thirty-four states. Id. ¶ 64. Enlist One and Enlist
Duo are made and sold by Corteva, which also sells seeds that are genetically engineered to resist
these Enlist products. Id. ¶ 65. Plaintiff alleges that the ingredients in Enlist One and Enlist Duo,
and the products themselves, have numerous adverse effects on the environment, including highly
toxic effects on crops, plants, pollinators, and other species. Id. ¶¶ 63, 68–87. Enlist One and
Enlist Duo have registrations from the EPA. Id. ¶ 115–16.
Generally speaking, before any herbicide or pesticide can be used in the United States, the
EPA must issue a license, or registration, that sets the terms and conditions for that product. Id. ¶
28. Pursuant to FIFRA, the EPA must make certain determinations––including related to the
product’s adverse effects on the environment––before registering or re-registering it. Id. ¶¶ 29–
38. Additionally, pursuant to the ESA, the EPA must ensure that registration decisions are not
likely to jeopardize the existence of endangered or threatened species or critical habitats. Id. ¶¶
43–44. This includes a consultation process. Id. ¶¶ 45–57.
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs argue that the EPA’s registration decisions for Enlist One and
Enlist Duo were not supported by substantial evidence, claiming that the EPA understated the risks
and costs of its decision, overstated the benefits of Enlist products, and failed to mitigate adverse
environmental risks in violation of FIFRA. Id. at 90–94. They also argue that these registration
decisions violated the ESA by failing to undertake the necessary consultation process, to prevent
jeopardy and adverse modification of any endangered or threatened species or critical habitats, and
to prevent irreversible commitment of resources. Id. at 94–99.
After Plaintiff filed their Complaint, Corteva filed the pending Motion to Intervene. As

3

mentioned above, Corteva is the seller of Enlist products and, therefore, the owner of the
challenged registrations. Corteva’s Mot. at 9.
CropLife also filed a Motion to Intervene. CropLife is a national trade association
representing companies that develop and sell pesticide products. CropLife’s Mot. at 11. Corteva
is a member of CropLife; other CropLife members also have registrations for other pesticide
products that contain the active ingredients glyphosate and 2,4-D. Id.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

A. Intervention as of Right
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) governs intervention as a matter of right. That
provision requires the Court “[o]n timely motion” to “permit anyone to intervene who… claims
an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated
that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to
protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(a)(2). Consistent with this rule, the D.C. Circuit requires putative intervenors to demonstrate
“(1) the timeliness of the motion; (2) whether the applicant claims an interest relating to the
property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) whether 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; and (4) whether the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by
existing parties.” Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728, 731 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted).
The D.C. Circuit also requires parties seeking to intervene under Rule 24(a)—including
putative defendant-intervenors—to demonstrate that they have standing under Article III of the
Constitution. See Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 788 F.3d

4

312, 316 (D.C. Cir. 2015); Fund for Animals, 322 F.3d at 731–32. “The standing inquiry for an
intervening-defendant is the same as for a plaintiff: the intervenor must show injury in fact,
causation, and redressability.” Crossroads, 788 F.3d at 316 (citing Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust v.
F.D.I.C., 717 F.3d 189, 193 (D.C. Cir. 2013)).
B. Permissive Intervention
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) authorizes permissive intervention for anyone who
files a timely motion and “has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common
question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B). In exercising its discretion to permit
intervention, among other factors, “the court must consider whether the intervention will unduly
delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3).
C. Restrictions on Intervenor’s Participation
Once a district court concludes that a party has a right to intervene, the inquiry is not
necessarily at an end. Even where intervention is a matter of right, district courts may impose
appropriate conditions or restrictions upon the intervenor’s participation in the action. Fund for
Animals, 322 F.3d at 737 n. 11 (citing favorably to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 advisory committee’s note
to 1966 amendment); see also Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in Action, 480 U.S. 370, 383
(1987) (Brennan, J., concurring) (“restrictions on participation may also be placed on an intervenor
of right and on an original party”). The district court’s discretion to impose reasonable restrictions
on participation is consonant with its inherent power to manage the litigation before it,
Beauregard, Inc. v. Sword Servs. LLC, 107 F.3d 351, 353 (5th Cir. 1997), as well as a necessary
instrument in accommodating the two conflicting goals of intervention: i.e., “to achieve judicial
economies of scale by resolving related issues in a single lawsuit, and to prevent the single lawsuit
from becoming fruitlessly complex or unending,” Smuck v. Hobson, 408 F.2d 175, 179 (D.C. Cir.

5

1969).
III.

DISCUSSION

Before the Court are motions to intervene by two entities––Corteva and CropLife––which
the Court will address separately.
A. Defendant-Intervenor Corteva
Plaintiffs do not oppose Corteva’s motion to intervene in this case. Pl.’s Opp’n at 1.
However, they do seek to impose restrictions on Corteva’s intervention. The Court will begin by
addressing the requirements for intervention as of right, finding that Corteva has satisfied all
requirements.
i.

Standing

Before addressing each Rule 24(a) factor, the Court must consider Corteva’s standing.
Crossroads, 788 F.3d at 316 (“[W]here a party tries to intervene as another defendant, we have
required it to demonstrate Article III standing[.]”). In order “[t]o establish standing under Article
III, a prospective intervenor—like any party—must show: (1) injury-in-fact, (2) causation, and (3)
redressability.” Fund for Animals, 322 F.3d at 732–33.
In a case such as this one, where Corteva’s property––its registrations for Enlist One and
Enlist Duo––is the object of the action at issue, standing is essentially self-evident. See Fund for
Animals, Inc., 322 F.3d at 733–34.
As for injury in fact, Corteva stands to suffer a substantial economic injury, as the EPA’s
registration of Enlist One and Enlist Duo grants Corteva licenses to market and sell those products.
See Corteva’s Mot. at 15; Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 733–34 (1972) (“economic injuries
have long been recognized as sufficient to lay the basis for standing”). This economic injury would
be traceable to Plaintiff’s Complaint because, absent the filing of this lawsuit, Corteva would
remain able to market and sell its Enlist products. See Corteva’s Mot. at 15–16. In turn,
6

redressability is met, as Corteva can prevent the injury by defeating Plaintiffs’ challenge. See id.
at 16; Crossroads, 788 F.3d at 316.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Corteva has standing to proceed as an intervenor in this
case.
ii.

Intervention as of Right

Turning to the four-factor analysis described above, the Court concludes that Corteva has
satisfied each element and is entitled to intervene as a matter of right pursuant to Rule 24(a).
First, Corteva’s application to intervene is timely. They filed their motion to intervene
approximately two months after Plaintiffs filed their Complaint and Defendants were served, and
before Defendants filed a responsive pleading. See Admiral Ins. Co. v. Nat’l Cas. Co., 137 F.R.D.
176, 177 (D.D.C. 1991) (CRR) (motions to intervene are generally timely when filed before “the
major substantive issues in [the] case” have been “argued or resolved”). The Court finds that
Corteva’s intervention was timely and will not delay the action or otherwise prejudice the parties.
Second, the Court concludes that Corteva has demonstrated an “interest relating to the
property or transaction that is the subject of the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). The Court’s
conclusion that a putative intervenor has constitutional standing is “alone sufficient to establish…
[its] interest in the property or transaction which is the subject of the action.” Fund for Animals,
322 F.3d at 735 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Crossroads, 788 F.3d at
320 (“[S]ince [intervenor] has constitutional standing, it a fortiori has an interest relating to the
property or transaction which is the subject of the action.”) (internal citation and quotation marks
omitted); Mova Pharma. Corp. v. Shalala, 140 F.3d 1060, 1076 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (“[Intervenor]
need not show anything more than that it has standing to sue in order to demonstrate the existence
of a legally protected interest for the purpose of Rule 24(a).”). Here, Corteva has a clear, legally

7

protectable interest in this action, specifically an interest in the property that is the subject of this
litigation: the registrations for Enlist One and Enlist Duo. See, e.g., Foster v. Gueory, 655 F.2d
1319, 1324 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“An intervenor’s interest is obvious when he asserts a claim to
property that is the subject matter of the suit”); Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 99 F.R.D. 607, 609
(D.D.C. 1983) (pesticide industry representatives moving to intervene “can be said to have a
substantial and direct interest in the subject” of a lawsuit challenging procedures by which the EPA
determined whether their pesticide products “merited continued registration”).
Third, the Court finds that Corteva is “so situated that the disposition of the action may as
a practical matter impede or impair [its] ability to protect its interest.” Fund for Animals, 322 F.3d
at 735 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2)). In evaluating this prong of Rule 24(a), the Court
considers the “practical consequences,” of denying intervention, which may include economic
consequences. Id. at 735. Here, Plaintiffs’ requested relief, if granted, would result in the vacatur
of the EPA’s registration decisions of Enlist One and Enlist Duo and a stop sale order, which would
bar Corteva from distributing its Enlist products. This would detrimentally impact Corteva, both
through halting such sales, but also by “jeopardiz[ing] the investments it has made in the research,
development, registration, production, and marketing of these products,” and impacting their
reputation. Corteva’s Mot. at 12. Corteva has “an interest in the [registrations] at issue, and a
decision in their absence would impair their ability to protect that interest.” Friends of Animals v.
Ashe, No. 15-0653 (ABJ), 2015 WL 13672461, at *3 (D.D.C. June 12, 2015).
Fourth, Corteva has sufficiently demonstrated that no existing party to the action will
adequately represent its interests. The D.C. Circuit has described this last requirement as “not
onerous,” Fund for Animals, 322 F.3d at 735 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), and
has “often concluded that governmental entities do not adequately represent the interests of

8

aspiring intervenors.” Crossroads, 788 F.3d at 314. The Court agrees that Corteva has interests in
this action distinct from Defendants EPA and the EPA Administrator, and that Defendants do not
adequately represent Corteva’s interests. Although Corteva and Defendants may share an interest
in upholding the registrations, Corteva points out that it “does not share in EPA’s broader
objectives to represent the interests of the public at large,” while the EPA does not share in
Corteva’s financial interests, such as “ultimately receiving revenue in the form of sales and
royalties from Enlist herbicides.” Corteva’s Mot. at 14.
Because Corteva has standing and has satisfied Rule 24(a)’s requirements, the Court
concludes that it may intervene as a defendant as a matter of right.2
iii.

Conditions on Intervention

“Even where the Court concludes that intervention as a matter of right is appropriate, its
inquiry is not necessarily at an end; district courts may impose appropriate conditions or
restrictions upon the intervenor’s participation in the action.” Forest Cty. Potawatomi Community
v. United States, 317 F.R.D. 6, 15 (D.D.C. 2016) (CKK) (citing Fund for Animals, 322 F.3d at 737
n.11) (additional citations omitted). “[A]ny conditions imposed should be designed to ensure the
fair, efficacious, and prompt resolution of the litigation.” Id.; see, e.g., Brady Campaign to Prevent
Gun Violence v. Salazar, 612 F. Supp. 2d 1, 11 n.8 (D.D.C. 2009) (CKK) (granting intervention
of right but prohibiting intervenors from raising new claims or collateral issues); Cty. of San
Miguel, 244 F.R.D. 36, 48 n.17 (D.D.C. 2007) (RBW) (limiting intervention of right to claims
within the scope of the complaint).

2

Because the Court concludes that Corteva may intervene as a matter of right, it is unnecessary
to determine whether it also entitled to intervene by permissive intervention pursuant to Rule
24(b). See Am. Horse Prot. Assoc., Inc. v. Veneman, 200 F.R.D. 153, 156 (D.D.C. 2001) (HHK /
JMF) (concluding that movant was entitled to intervene as of right and declining to reach
question of permissive intervention).
9

Plaintiffs here ask the Court to impose certain conditions on Corteva’s intervention “[t]o
avoid unnecessary duplicative briefing at the expense of the parties and the Court’s resources.”
Pls.’ Opp’n at 7.
In order to ensure the fair and efficacious resolution of this action, the Court shall require
Corteva, as an intervening party, to comply with the following conditions:
•

•
•

•
•

Corteva shall meet and confer with current Defendants prior to the filing of any motion,
responsive filing, or brief to determine whether its positions may be set forth in a
consolidated fashion—separate filings by Corteva shall include a certificate of
compliance with this requirement and briefly describe the need for separate filings. The
parties shall not file separate pleadings that repeat the same arguments;
Corteva shall confine its arguments to the existing claims in the action and shall not
inject new claims or stray into collateral issues;
Memoranda of points and authorities filed by Corteva in support of or in opposition to
any motion in this action shall not, without further leave of the Court and good cause
shown, exceed twenty-five (25) pages, and reply memoranda shall not exceed ten (10)
pages;
Corteva shall comply with each of the directives set forth in the [8] Order Establishing
Procedures for Cases Assigned to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly; and
In the event that a motion for summary judgment is filed in this action, Corteva shall
file a statement of facts with references to the administrative record consistent with
Local Rule LCvR 7(h)(2).

The Court finds that these conditions “strike the appropriate balance between ensuring the
expedient resolution of this action while preserving a space for the intervening part[y] to articulate
[its] respective positions and interests.” Forest Cty., 317 F.R.D. at 16.
*

*

*

In sum, the Court GRANTS Corteva’s [12] Motion to Intervene, and Corteva must adhere
to the conditions set forth above.
B. Defendant-Intervenor CropLife
The Court now turns to CropLife’s [17] Motion to Intervene. CropLife seeks to intervene
as of right as a defendant in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), or in the

10

alternative, to permissively intervene in accordance with Rule 24(b). CropLife’s Mot. at 1. The
Court addresses each in turn.
i.

Intervention as of Right

CropLife asserts that they are entitled to intervene as of right in this action because they
have made the necessary showing under Rule 24(a). Plaintiffs disagree and also challenge
CropLife’s Article III standing to intervene. The Court begins with a discussion of standing before
considering the four-part test for evaluating intervention as of right. See Deutsche Bank Nat’l
Trust Co. v. FDIC, 717 F.3d 189, 191 (D.C. Cir. 2013); Fund for Animals, Inc., 322 F.3d at 732.
a. Standing
An entity like CropLife can establish standing to sue in two ways. First, it could sue on its
own behalf if it “meet[s] the general standing requirements applied to individuals,” Nat’l
Taxpayers Union, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1428, 1433 (D.C. Cir. 1995), which is referred to
as “organizational standing.” Second, it could sue on behalf of its members if it demonstrates
“associational standing.” Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895, 898 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
Plaintiffs seem to challenge whether CropLife has organizational standing. See Pl.’s Opp’n
at 8 (explaining only the individual standing requirements), 10–11 (Plaintiffs’ discussion of
standing not addressing associational standing).

However, CropLife asserted associational

standing, CropLife’s Mot. at 12, and they point out Plaintiffs’ misplaced focus in their reply brief,
CropLife’s Reply at 7 n.3 (“Plaintiffs mistakenly apply the standard for organizational standing,
rather than associational standing.”).
To satisfy associational standing, the party must demonstrate that “(1) at least one of its
members would have standing to sue in his own right, (2) the interests the association seeks to
protect are germane to its purpose, and (3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested

11

requires that an individual member of the association participate in the lawsuit.” Sierra Club v.
EPA, 292 F.3d at 898 (emphasis added).
As for the first element, at least one of CropLife’s members has standing: Corteva is a
member, see CropLife’s Mot. at 11, and the Court already found that Corteva had standing, see
supra Part III.A.i. Plaintiffs explicitly agree to this, stating that “the only member of CropLife
who has standing to intervene in this action is Corteva.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 12. That is sufficient. See
Am. Chem. Council v. Dep’t of Transp., 468 F.3d 810, 818–20 (discussing the need to show “at
least one member” and identifying a “specific member[],” stating that “the identity of the party
suffering an injury in fact must be firmly established”).
The second element of associational standing is also satisfied, as CropLife’s interest in this
litigation is germane to its purpose. See CropLife’s Mot. at 11 (“CropLife is a national, private,
not-for-profit trade association representing companies that develop and sell pesticide products for
agriculture and pest management in the United States. Its registrant member companies produce
the vast majority of the crop protection and other pesticide products registered under FIFRA for
use in the United States.”); id. at 13 (“CropLife’s mission is to ensure growers and consumers have
the tools they need to protect crops, communities, and ecosystems from the threat of pests, weeds,
and diseases, and these interests are inherently reflected by the interests of CropLife’s individual
members.”).
Finally, CropLife meets the third element, as neither the claim asserted nor the relief
requested requires that an individual member of the association participate in the lawsuit. See id.
Accordingly, the Court finds that CropLife has satisfied associational standing
requirements.
The Court now turns to the four elements for intervention as of right under Federal Rule of

12

Civil Procedure 24(a): “(1) the timeliness of the motion; (2) whether the applicant claims an
interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) whether 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; and (4) whether the applicant’s interest is adequately
represented by existing parties.” Fund for Animals, Inc., 322 F.3d at 731. The Court will begin
by discussing (2) and (4) together, and, finding that CropLife fails to satisfy the standard, will
dispose of analyzing the other elements.
b. Protectable Interest and Adequate Representation by Other Parties
The second element outlined under Rule 24(a) demands that a prospective intervenor must
demonstrate an interest relating to the subject of the action. United States v. Philip Morris USA
Inc., 566 F.3d 1095, 1146 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Additionally, under the fourth element, they must
demonstrate that the representation of that interest by existing parties is inadequate. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 24(a)(2). The Court will consider these two elements together.
Plaintiffs dispute that CropLife has an interest relating to the subject of the action. See
generally Pl.’s Opp’n at 8–10. This prerequisite is satisfied “not [by] any interest the applicant can
put forward, but only [by] a legally protectable one.” Roane v. Gonzales, 269 F.R.D. 1, 3 (D.D.C.
2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A legally protectable interest is “of such a
direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal
operation and effect of the judgment.” United States v. Am. Tel. and Tel. Co., 642 F.2d 1285,
1291–92 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
It is true that “in most instances,” where a putative intervenor meets constitutional standing
requirements, it will likely also meet the requirement for a “legally protected” interest under Rule
24(a). Wildearth Guardians v. Salazar, 272 F.R.D. 4, 13 n.5 (D.D.C. 2010) (CKK); Fund for

13

Animals, 322 F.3d at 735. Here, the Court has already found that one of CropLife’s members
(Corteva) has standing such that CropLife meets the requirements for associational standing, which
would suggest that CropLife has an interest sufficient to support intervention as a matter of right.
Cf. Wildearth Guardians, 272 F.R.D. at 16.
But it then follows that where CropLife’s associational standing hinges on Corteva’s
standing, any protectable interest of CropLife then hinges on and overlaps with Corteva’s
protectable interest, leading to the conclusion that CropLife’s interest would be adequately
represented by Corteva.
As discussed previously, Corteva has a legally protectable property interest in the
registrations of Enlist One and Enlist Duo. See supra Part III.A.ii. In turn, CropLife has a
protectable interest in those registrations as well. See CropLife’s Mot. at 15 (referencing an
interest stemming from the fact that “members [who] hold… registrations, [] include Corteva, who
holds the Enlist One and Enlist Duo registrations”). But this interest will be adequately represented
by the presence of Corteva as the sole owner of the registrations at issue and as a party with
extensive knowledge of Enlist One, Enlist Duo, glyphosate, 2,4-D, other Enlist products, the Enlist
registration process, and more.
The Court acknowledges that an intervenor need only show that the “representation of his
interest ‘may be’ inadequate,” and that this burden is “minimal.” Trbovich v. United Mine
Workers, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10 (1972). However, considering CropLife’s interest as the property
interest in Enlist One and Enlist Duo, Corteva squarely represents that same interest. This is not
a case in which “the overall point of view might be shared” between a trade interest group and an
industry party, but where the two parties’ interests diverge. See Nat. Resources Def. Council v.
Costle, 561 F.2d 904, 913 (D.C. Cir. 1977). Instead, there is perfect overlap as to this interest. See

14

Earthworks v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, No. 09-1972, 2010 WL 3063139, at *2 (D.D.C. Aug. 3, 2010)
(HHK) (considering a trade association’s motion to intervene, finding interests adequately
represented where other trade associations and companies were already intervenors in the suit, and
the only divergence was the size of the member companies they represented).
The Court distills from CropLife’s motion three other proffered interests, none of which
constitute legally protectable interests in this case. The first of these is that CropLife’s members
other than Corteva hold glyphosate and 2,4-D registrations under FIFRA, which are legally
protectable property interests. CropLife’s Mot. at 15–16. But those interests are not implicated
here; in other words, they are not sufficiently related to the subject of this action so as to satisfy
the standard. See Am. Tel. and Tel. Co., 642 F.2d at 1291–92 (A legally protectable interest is “of
such a direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal
operation and effect of the judgment.”).
CropLife contends that if Plaintiffs succeed in this litigation, its members’ registrations for
products containing glyphosate and 2,4-D––as well as sales from those products, and their
investment in research, development, and compliance––are at “immediate risk.” CropLife’s Reply
at 2–3. But this is speculative; if Plaintiffs were to succeed on their claims, there is no trigger that
would immediately threaten or remove registrations for other members’ products.

Rachel

Lattimore, Executive Vice President of Legal Affairs, General Counsel, and Secretary of CropLife,
whose affidavit was included in support of CropLife’s Motion, implicitly acknowledges as such.
She states that “[i]f Plaintiffs prevail in this case, CropLife’s members’ registrations for pesticides
containing glyphosate and/or 2,4-D could be rendered null and void,” not that they would be.
CropLife’s Mot. Ex. A ¶ 19 (emphasis added). The case at hand only concerns the EPA’s
registrations of Enlist One and Enlist Duo, not any other FIFRA registrations for products with

15

glyphosate and 2,4-D. See Pls.’ Opp’n at 9; see also Compl. at 99–100 (all requested relief in
Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief referring to Enlist One and Enlist Duo).
The fact that glyphosate and 2,4-D are currently undergoing registration review, “a periodic
re-review of pesticide active ingredients required under FIFRA,” CropLife’s Reply at 5, does not
change this. To begin, this review occurs regardless of the instant litigation; it is conducted as part
of “a program that re-evaluates all pesticides on a 15-year cycle.” Pls.’ Opp’n at 11 n.1. CropLife
argues that if the Court agrees with some of Plaintiffs’ allegations––i.e., that the “EPA failed to
fully consider or quantify the human health risks associated with glyphosate and 2,4-D, including
increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma,” Compl. ¶ 311––such a finding “would necessarily
impact EPA’s ongoing registration review for those active ingredients, thus harming CropLife and
its members who maintain registrations for formulations of 2,4-D and glyphosate other than
Enlist,” CropLife’s Reply at 5. But CropLife “can only speculate that the resolution of this action
[may] impact” ongoing or future ESA review and, in turn, that such review would jeopardize other
CropLife members’ registrations. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.,
340 F.R.D. 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2021) (EGS). Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ allegations all rest on the Enlist
products––i.e., that the EPA failed to consider or quantify the human health risks associated with
those ingredients with respect to the EPA’s review and registration of the Enlist products. To the
extent that the Court may consider these allegations in future dispositive motions, CropLife can
adequately represent that interest.
Second, CropLife argues that their members also have significant, protectable interests in
the development and sales of seed engineered with tolerance to glyphosate and 2,4-D. CropLife’s
Mot. at 16. But this case does not concern such engineered seed, nor does it concern glyphosate
and 2,4-D generally. See Pl.’s Opp’n at 9. To the extent that there is a protectable interest in seed

16

engineered with tolerance to Enlist products specifically (rather than tolerance to glyphosate and
2,4-D products more generally), see CropLife’s Reply at 3–4, that interest would be adequately
represented by Corteva’s presence in this litigation, particularly as Corteva develops and sells
seeds containing this Enlist-tolerant trait, see id. at 4.
Third and finally, CropLife describes an interest stemming from its members’ involvement
in the relevant EPA processes. They argue that they have “significant, protectable interests in the
considerable efforts invested by its members in participating in the administrative process that
culminated in EPA’s registration decisions for Enlist One and Enlist Duo and other similar
herbicides, including but not limited to extensive work with the agency on its obligations under
the Endangered Species Act.” CropLife’s Mot. at 17–18. CropLife continues that they have a
“strong interest in the EPA’s implementation of its ESA Workplan.” Id. at 18.
CropLife provides a specific example of this interest. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs assert
that “because EPA decided to approve the registrations of Enlist One and Enlist Duo before
completing formal consultation with the [Fish and Wildlife Service], EPA violated its mandatory
consultation duties under section 7(a)(2).” Compl. ¶ 356. CropLife argues that this procedure was
outlined in the pertinent ESA workplan, which states that the “EPA may need to issue a final
registration for a pesticide even if the Agency has initiated but not completed consultation for the
pesticide.” CropLife’s Reply at 6 (emphasis in CropLife’s brief). Therefore, according to
CropLife, where the EPA has “signaled that it would use [this workplan] for evaluations of other
pesticide products moving forward,” Plaintiffs’ challenge to the EPA’s process would therefore
threaten that workplan’s viability moving forward, such that other CropLife member’s interests
would be implicated in processes involving their registrations. Id. But again, this interest is not
“of such a direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct

17

legal operation and effect of the judgment.” Am. Tel. and Tel. Co., 642 F.2d at 1291–92. Plaintiffs’
Complaint does “not challenge EPA’s past guidance or work plans for its overall ESA compliance
when registering pesticides,” Pls.’ Opp’n at 10, although the Complaint may reference specific
actions taken related to Enlist products that were allegedly in violation of EPA guidance.
Therefore, if Plaintiffs prevail and the registrations for Enlist One and Enlist Duo are vacated, such
a judgment will not directly and immediately change the EPA’s administrative processes including
ESA obligations and work plans.
Accordingly, the Court finds that CropLife does not assert any protectable interests that
will not be adequately represented by Corteva, and therefore CropLife has failed to meet the
requirements for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a). The Court will now turn to discuss
potential permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).
ii.

Permissive Intervention

CropLife asserts that, if the Court denies intervention as of right, it should grant permissive
intervention under Rule 24(b). That rule authorizes permissive intervention for anyone who files
a timely motion and “has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question
of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B). Plaintiffs do not challenge timeliness or whether
CropLife has a shared claim or defense, see Pls.’ Opp’n at 12–13 (not addressing these issues), so
the Court considers them conceded and will not address such factors but instead moves to the
Court’s discretionary considerations.
In considering a motion for permissive intervention, a court assesses whether intervention
will “unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(b)(3). A court also considers “the nature and extent of the applicant’s interests, the degree to
which those interests are adequately represented by other parties, and whether parties seeking

18

intervention will significantly contribute to… the just and equitable adjudication of the legal
question presented.” Aristotle Int’l, Inc. v. NGP Software, Inc., 714 F. Supp. 2d 1, 18 (D.D.C.
2010) (TFH) (quotations omitted); see also Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. E.P.A., 274 F.R.D.
305, 313 (D.D.C. 2011) (HHK); Roane, 269 F.R.D. at 5 (considering “whether the facts necessary
to assert [the intervenor’s] claim are essential[ly] the same facts as those necessary to establish [an
existing party’s] claim”).
Plaintiffs argue that “CropLife’s intervention will lead to redundant and repetitive
arguments, a dramatic expansion of the issues before this Court, and in turn, unduly delay the
proceedings of this case because CropLife does not have a legally protectable interest in this case
that is not already adequately represented by Federal Defendants and Proposed Intervenor
Corteva.” Pls.’ Opp’n at 13. The Court agrees.
CropLife will not contribute any additional, necessary information to this litigation. They
explain that they “do[] not seek to file counter or cross claims,” but that they “seek[] to defend the
validity of the Enlist One and Enlist Duo registrations.” CropLife’s Mot. at 23. So too does
Corteva. CropLife continues that they would “seek to assist this Court by highlighting the
overwhelming importance of glyphosate and 2,4-D products to U.S. agriculture, of EPA’s sciencebased review in connection with the registration process, and of EPA’s recent work on ESA
issues.” Id. These topics lie outside the scope of this litigation and are unnecessary to address the
claims presented by Plaintiff; if they end up being relevant, Corteva could adequately present
useful information. CropLife offers an example of additional information they would present,
indicating that CropLife member Bayer CropScience “has specific and unique expertise related to
the development and production of glyphosate and the seeds designed to be tolerant to glyphosate.”
CropLife’s Reply at 11 n.4. But the development and production of glyphosate and glyphosate-

19

tolerate seeds––other than as related to Enlist One and Enlist Duo, which can be addressed by
Corteva––is not at issue in this case. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 74 F.R.D. at 313 (“Movants
argue persuasively that they have substantial expertise and a unique perspective regarding the
manufacture and operation of aircraft and the engines thereof. Contrary to movants’ assertions,
however, aircraft and their engines are not at issue in this case.”). CropLife can serve these specific
interests and present this information by continuing to participate in EPA processes, as allowed,
and, if a chain of speculative events does eventually occur that results in other CropLife members’
product registrations being vacated, CropLife could then pursue litigation to protect its interests.
While the Court is aware that it is “not enough to deny intervention … because the applicants may
vindicate their interests in some later, albeit more burdensome, litigation,” Costle, 561 F.2d at 910,
in the present case before this Court, CropLife’s legally protectable interest is adequately
represented by another party to this suit. See In re Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline
Litigation, 270 F.R.D. 1, 6–7 (D.D.C. 2010) (EGS).
Any arguments or evidence that CropLife would offer “will be merely cumulative to what
[Corteva] will offer, and in that respect it may create unwarranted delay and prejudice to
Plaintiffs.” Env’tl Def. Fund v. Thomas, No. 85-1747, 1985 WL 6050, at *7 (D.D.C. Oct. 29,
1985). The expertise and perspective that CropLife purports to add “have no bearing on the
[issues] here in dispute.” See id. In sum, allowing CropLife to intervene would delay litigation,
prejudice Plaintiffs, and result in an inefficient use of judicial resources by broadening scope of
litigation beyond Plaintiffs’ Complaint, while not significantly contributing to the just and
equitable adjudication of the legal question presented.
The Court emphasizes that “permissive intervention is an inherently discretionary
enterprise,” E.E.O.C. v. Nat’l Children's Ctr., Inc., 146 F.3d 1042, 1046 (D.C. Cir. 1998), and “the

20

court enjoys considerable discretion under Rule 24(b),” Envtl. Def. v. Leavitt, 329 F. Supp. 2d 55,
66 (D.D.C. 2004) (RMU). The Court, in an exercise of its discretion, finds that CropLife has not
satisfied the standard warranting permissive intervention in this case.
*

*

*

The Court, therefore, Court DENIES CropLife’s [17] Motion to Intervene.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall GRANT Corteva’s [12] Motion to Intervene.
As an intervening party, Corteva shall comply with the conditions set forth in this Memorandum
Opinion. The Court shall also DENY CropLife’s [17] Motion to Intervene.
An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

/s/
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
United States District Judge

21