SYNGENTA v. PAUL
Filed 4/25/06 Opinion on rehearing
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PAUL E. HELLIKER, as Director, etc., Defendant and Appellant; GUSTAFSON LLC, Real Party in Interest and Appellant. | B175450 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC253673) |
| DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PAUL E. HELLIKER, as Director, etc., Defendant and Appellant. | B175450 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS078342) |
APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Dzintra I. Janavs and Gregory C. O'Brien, Judges. Affirmed in part as modified, and reversed in part with directions.
McKenna Long & Aldridge, Stanley W. Landfair, Joseph F. Butler, Robert S. Schuda, Shannon L. Fagan, Michael J. Stiles and Eric S.C. Lindstrom for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Tom Greene, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary E. Hackenbracht, Assistant Attorney General, William S. Abbey and Todd A. Valdes, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Appellant.
Murchison & Cumming, Edmund G. Farrell III, Gina E. Och; Kessler & Collins, Gary S. Kessler and Daniel P. Callahan for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
Continue from Part II …….
The Department contends (1) Food and Agricultural Code section 12824 creates a two-tier data requirement system that distinguishes an original application for registration of a product containing an active ingredient from a subsequent application for registration of a product containing the same active ingredient, and does not require that the same data be submitted by the subsequent applicant; (2) the Department did not consider data submitted by Syngenta and Dow when it reviewed applications by Gustafson and others; (3) there was a rational basis to require more data to support the applications by Syngenta and Dow than to support the later applications by Gustafson and others, and there was no discriminatory intent, so there was no equal protection violation; (4) there was no taking because (i) the voluntary submission of data by Syngenta and Dow to the Department when the Department had no obligation to protect the confidentiality of the data extinguished their property rights in the data, (ii) the data did not suffer a diminution in value, and (iii) the Department neither improperly used or considered data submitted by Syngenta and Dow when it reviewed applications by Gustafson and others nor did so for a public purpose; (5) the data submitted by Syngenta and Dow are not trade secrets under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act because the data are disclosable under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq.; FIFRA); (6) the amendments to the regulations had no regulatory effect and therefore required no notice and hearing; (7) the Notice was not a regulation or policy and therefore was not subject to the rulemaking procedural requirements of the APA; and (8) former Food and Agricultural Code section 12811.5 prohibited only the actual consideration of certain data by the Department, and did not prohibit â€
