PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. 	Civil Action No. 24-445 (JEB)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, et al.,
Defendants.
INHANCE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
LEE ZELDIN, in his official capacity as
ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, et al.,
Defendants.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
This consolidated action features two suits: the first brought by environmental groups
against the Environmental Protection Agency seeking the release of records under the Freedom
of Information Act (No. 24-445) and the second filed by Inhance Technologies LLC to block
such release, at least in part (No. 25-980). While the parties are now in the midst of summary-
Civil Action No. 25-980 (JEB)
Case 1:24-cv-00445-JEB Document 37 Filed 12/03/25 Page 1 of 3

2
judgment briefing, BP Polymers (which is not a party to the case) has moved to intervene solely
for the purpose of striking material in Inhance’s motion for summary judgment. See ECF 34-1
(Mot. to Interv.). Alternatively, even if not granted intervention, BP Polymers asks the Court to
strike the material under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Id. at 1. The Court will permit
intervention but deny the Motion to Strike.
BP Polymers is a direct competitor of Inhance in the plastics market. Id. It maintains
that Inhance’s summary-judgment brief’s “references to and framing of [a BP Polymers] Letter
[to the EPA] is misleading and prejudicial to BP Polymers — not to mention, irrelevant to the
merits of the summary judgment motion.” Id. at 4. Inhance responds that BP Polymers
misinterprets the statements in its brief and maintains that the proposed intervenor “has not
shown (nor could it) that anything stated in the summary judgment brief may ‘as a practical
matter impair or impede’ its ability to protect its reputation.” ECF No. 35 (Inhance Resp.) at 5
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2)).
The parties spill considerable ink on the factors related to intervention. See Mot. to
Interv. at 6–9; Inhance Resp. at 2–9. The Court will not follow suit because even if BP Polymers
did not qualify for intervention as of right, the Court believes that it should be allowed to
permissively intervene. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) & (b). That brings us to whether or not the
material in Inhance’s brief should be stricken. This raises disputed questions relating to whether
that brief is a “pleading,” whether Rule 12(f) supports striking the material, and, most
significantly, whether Inhance’s reference in its brief in fact mischaracterizes BP Polymers’
Letter and also causes that company harm.
The Court wonders if the juice elicited from such fruit is worth the squeeze. If this were
a situation in which a party had entered plainly “impertinent[] or scandalous matter” on the
Case 1:24-cv-00445-JEB Document 37 Filed 12/03/25 Page 2 of 3

3
record, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), this analysis might be necessary. Here, however, the question is
nuanced, and BP Polymers has now placed on the record a lengthy rebuttal to Inhance’s
statements in both its Motion and Reply. Its purpose of not letting such statements appear as
uncontested fact has thus been achieved. In such an instance, the Court does not believe that
more is required.
It accordingly ORDERS that BP Polymers’ [34] Motion to Intervene is GRANTED, and
its Motion to Strike is DENIED.
/s/ James E. Boasberg
JAMES E. BOASBERG
United States District Judge
Date: December 3, 2025
Case 1:24-cv-00445-JEB Document 37 Filed 12/03/25 Page 3 of 3