Center for Food Safety, Inc. v. Wood Farms, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________________________________________
Center for Food Safety, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
v. 5:23-CV-399
(MJK)
Wood Farms, LLC.
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
Charles M. Tebbutt, Esq., for Plaintiff
Donald E. Spurrell, Esq., for Plaintiff
David L. Cook, Esq., for Defendants
Nicholas Roberts, Esq., for Defendants
Mitchell J. Katz, United States Magistrate Judge
SUMMARY BRIEFING ORDER
On March 4, 2025, while this litigation was on going, the United
States Supreme Court decided City and Cnty. of San Fransico v. U.S.
EPA. (“San Fransico v. EPA”), 604 U.S. 334 (2025). In that case, the
court, reversing the Ninth Circuit’s decision, held that 33 U.S.C.
“§1311(b)(1)(C) does not authorize the EPA to include ‘end result’
provisions in NPDES permits.” Id. at 355.
On September 23, 2025, Food Safety moved for partial summary
judgment. (Food Safety Partial MSJ, Dkt. 122). Wood Farms responded.
(Wood Farms Partial MSJ, Dkt. 125-7). Wood Farms, in its motion,
argued that “any discharges of pollutants that are not from the
production area are considered violations of the [ECL] under the
General Permit only if they either cause or contribute to a violation of
water quality standards” but that prohibition “on causing or
contributing to a water quality violation is an impermissible end-result
Case 5:23-cv-00399-MJK Document 167 Filed 04/17/26 Page 1 of 2

requirement under the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision” San
Francisco v. EPA. (Id. at pg. 4) (cleaned up). Food Safety replied but did
not address this argument. (Food Safety reply, Dkt. 126).
The Court heard oral argument on the motion. See (Dkt. 146). At
the hearing, Wood Farms “suggested that” Section I.B.3 “of the permit
may no longer be valid under the Supreme Court’s decision” in San
Francisco v. EPA. (Hearing, Dkt. 146, pg. 82, at lns. 8-10). But
ultimately, the Court, on that day, did not consider that issue. Now,
notwithstanding any purported waiver of this issue at the hearing, it
does. The Court requests the parties brief the following two questions:
1. Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in San Francisco v.
EPA renders Section I.B.3. of Wood Farms’s permit
inoperable—i.e. Wood Farms cannot violate that part of
the permit.
2. Whether if the Court found Wood Farms liable for
violating Section I.B.3., can the Court impose any remedy
and enter judgment against Wood Farms for violating
Section I.B.3?
The parties briefing is due with their Motions in Limine.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: April 17, 2026
_________________________
Hon. Mitchell J. Katz
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 5:23-cv-00399-MJK Document 167 Filed 04/17/26 Page 2 of 2