3:17-cv-02162
N.D. Cal.Oct 28, 2022Background
- Food & Water Watch (FWW) petitioned EPA under TSCA to promulgate a rule banning addition of fluoridation chemicals to public drinking water; EPA denied the petition and FWW sued for de novo review under 15 U.S.C. § 2620(b)(4)(B).
- The parties completed fact and expert discovery and the Court held a seven-day bench trial (June 2020) featuring extensive expert testimony on fluoride neurotoxicity.
- On August 10, 2020, the Court stayed the case because of serious standing concerns and to allow EPA and the Court to consider new scientific studies and an imminent National Toxicology Program (NTP) systematic review.
- FWW submitted a supplemental petition; EPA again denied it. Since the stay, one named plaintiff, Jessica Trader, became pregnant, addressing the Court’s standing concern.
- FWW moved to lift the stay (Sept. 12, 2022). The Court granted the motion (Oct. 28, 2022), lifting the stay, authorizing limited post-trial discovery focused on the May 2022 NTP draft under a protective order, permitting expert review of new science, and scheduling a status conference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to lift the stay | Changed circumstances: standing cured and new science warrants reopening | Opposes reopening except to decide on June 2020 record | Stay lifted; narrowly tailored discovery allowed |
| Standing | Trader’s pregnancy creates imminent, redressable injury | Previously challenged standing; had acknowledged expectant parent would suffice | Standing defects cured; no dismissal for lack of standing |
| Consideration of post-trial science (ELEMENT/MIREC, Spanish study, NTP draft) | New studies and May 2022 NTP draft are relevant and should inform further proceedings | Case should be decided on the June 2020 trial record; exclude post-trial developments | Court will consider post-trial science and permit expert review of new evidence |
| Access to NTP May 2022 draft / discovery scope | Requests production of the May 2022 NTP draft for expert review | Raises confidentiality and dissemination concerns for unpublished draft; urges limited disclosure | Court orders production of May 2022 draft under protective order; further scheduling and expert depositions deferred to status conference |
Key Cases Cited
- Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (U.S. 1997) (district court has broad discretion to stay and to lift stays)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (Article III standing elements)
- Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2000) (court must weigh stay length against justification; longer/indefinite stays require greater showing)
- Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2007) (stays generally should not be indefinite)
- City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 866 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2017) (district court abused discretion by excluding later-evolving scientific evidence and denying reopened discovery)