Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Environmental Law
Preliminary Injunction Sought to Prevent Application of Poultry Litter is Denied
Walt McCarterNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In Edmondson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 05-CV-329-GKF-SAJ, 2008 WL 4453098 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 29, 2008), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma held that the State of Oklahoma had failed to meet its burden of proof sufficient to entitle it to a preliminary injunction prohibiting the application of poultry litter in the Illinois River watershed.
Background
The Oklahoma attorney general brought an action against several poultry companies operating in the Illinois River watershed area for alleged water pollution due to application of poultry litter, and moved for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the application of litter in the watershed. Id. at *1.
Analysis and Holdings
The court began by setting forth the four equitable factors required to obtain a preliminary injunction: "(1) the movant will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issues; (2) the threatened injury outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; (3) the injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the public interest; and (4) there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits." Id. (quoting Summum v. Pleasant Grove City, 483 F.3d 1044, 1048 (10th Cir.2007)). The court added that "[w]hen a case is brought pursuant to an environmental or public health statute, including the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA), the primary focus shifts from 'irreparable injury' to concern for the general public interest." Id. Additionally, the court explained that there are three types of disfavored injunctions: "(1) preliminary injunctions that alter the status quo; (2) mandatory preliminary injunctions; (3) and preliminary injunctions that afford the movant all the relief that it could recover at the conclusion of a full trial on the merits." Id. at *2 (quoting O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 973, 975 (10th Cir.2004)). In the event that the injunction sought falls within one of those three categories, it will be more closely scrutinized and the moving party must make a strong showing both with regard to the likelihood of success on the merits and with regard to the balance of harms. Id.
The court found that the injunction sought here would alter the status quo and it would be mandatory, and so the court applied a heightened standard in considering the traditional equitable factors, with emphasis on the public's interest. Id. at *3. The court concluded that the testimony and conclusions of certain expert witnesses of the State were not sufficiently reliable under the standards for scientific expert testimony and evidence enunciated in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), because of a lack of publication or peer review. Id. at *4. The court further found that the evidence showed that "fecal bacteria in the waters of the IRW come from a number of sources" other than poultry litter application, including cattle manure and waste from human septic systems, and therefore held that the State had failed to meet its burden of showing that the bacteria levels in the IRW could be traced to the application of poultry litter. Id. The court then denied the State's motion for preliminary injunction. Id.
The case was decided on September 29, 2008.