American Small Business League v. Department of Defense, 3:14-cv-02166

Plaintiff American Small Business League filed a FOIA request (Aug 9, 2013) seeking Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation’s most recent comprehensive subcontracting plan submitted to DOD’s Test Program.
DOD denied the FOIA request; plaintiff sued. The district court ordered DOD to produce Sikorsky’s plan; Sikorsky previously intervened to appeal that order and the Ninth Circuit reversed the disclosure order.
After the appeal, Sikorsky moved to intervene again for all purposes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and 24(b); both plaintiff and DOD do not oppose intervention.
The key legal question for intervention as of right was whether DOD adequately represents Sikorsky’s interests in preventing disclosure of the subcontracting plan.
The court evaluated both intervention-as-of-right (timeliness, protectable interest, practical impairment, inadequate representation) and permissive intervention (jurisdictional grounds, timeliness, common questions).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sikorsky may intervene as of right under FRCP 24(a), focusing on adequacy of representation	ASBL sought disclosure; plaintiff opposed intervention that might block disclosure	DOD and Sikorsky share the same ultimate objective (prevent disclosure); DOD will protect Sikorsky’s interests	Denied as of right: Sikorsky failed to rebut presumption that DOD adequately represents its interests
Whether permissive intervention under FRCP 24(b) is appropriate (jurisdiction, timeliness, common questions)	Plaintiff did not oppose intervention but maintains core FOIA dispute	DOD does not oppose; Sikorsky’s defense (exemption from disclosure) aligns with main action	Granted permissive intervention: federal-question case, timeliness satisfied, common legal/factual questions exist

Citizens for Balanced Use v. Mont. Wilderness Ass’n, 647 F.3d 893 (9th Cir.) (standards for intervention under Rule 24)
Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir.) (presumption of adequate representation and requirement to make compelling showing to rebut)
Perry v. Proposition 8 Official Proponents, 587 F.3d 947 (9th Cir.) (mere differences in litigation strategy insufficient for intervention as of right)
Blake v. Pallan, 554 F.2d 947 (9th Cir.) (expert factual contributions may be provided by amicus rather than intervention)
Nw. Forest Res. Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825 (9th Cir.) (permissive intervention standards)
Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Geithner, 644 F.3d 836 (9th Cir.) (no separate jurisdictional showing required for intervenors in federal-question cases raising no new claims)
United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915 (9th Cir.) (timeliness analysis for intervention)