Description of Action

Your Moms Team and coalition filed a Toxic Substances Control Act petition at the EPA in Washington DC. This petition alleges that there is neurotoxic harm from drinking fluoride and the EPA needs to follow their own rules on neurotoxicity and ban the practice of allowing this chemical to be added to the public drinking water. This petition to the EPA included over 180 new studies on fluoride's neurotoxicity including human studies showing reduced IQ.

The EPA denies the TSCA petition and allows a de novo proceeding in Federal Court.

The Coalition files our complaint against the EPA in a Federal District Court in the 9th Circuit.

Plantiffs Opposition to EPA's Motion to Dismiss

Defendants Reply in Further Support of Motion to Dismiss

EPA tries to  roadblock us and limit plantififs' ability to prove our case and limit our discovery.
EPA requests court for “a protective order limiting review to the administrative record and an order striking Plaintiffs’ Jury Demand.”

Judge's ORDER  denying the EPA's motion. 
Court rules in our favor and denies EPA’s Motion to Dismiss!

Amicus Brief by NRDC and SCHF
NRDC opposes EPA’s motion to limit petitioner’s right to discovery. They state, “To the contrary, the language, structure, and history of section 21 all support the district court’s consideration of new evidence.”

Our oposition to the EPA's tactic to try to limit our "discovery" and prove our case.
Our Team opposition to EPA’s motion to the court for a sweeping order that would exempt this “civil action” from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) and deny Plaintiffs their right to discovery.

EPA wants to limit our abilty to prove our allegations of harm.  
EPA’s “further support of their motion for a protective order limiting review to the administrative record.”

EPA response to each (107) paragraph to the Plantiffs “Complaint” of April 18, 2017 (link is external), concluding: “Except as expressly admitted or otherwise stated herein, EPA denies each and every allegation in Plaintiff’s Complaint.”

Judge Ruled in our favor on the EPA's Motion to limit our "discovery". 
The court ruled: “The EPA moves for a protective order limiting the scope of review in this litigation to the administrative record, a request that would effectively foreclose Plaintiffs from introducing any evidence in this litigation that was not attached to their administrative petition. The text of the TSCA, its structure, its purpose, and the legislative history make clear that Congress did not intend to impose such a limitation in judicial review of Section 21 citizen petitions. "The Court therefore DENIES the EPA’s motion.”

 Nov. 2018

to July 2019

  EPA attempted to have the trial postponed for 65 days  and to add another "expert" after the allowed time. 

 Judge Chen denied their requests. See the  ruling.

"For the forgoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Enlargement of Time.

This order disposes of Docket No. 113 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 25, 2019"

 JOINT PRETRIAL CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Judge Again Rejects EPA's Motion To End Landmark TSCA Citizen Suit A federal judge has again denied EPA’s effort to end a potentially precedent-setting suit challenging the agency’s denial of a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) citizen petition seeking to ban drinking water fluoridation, though the judge also rejected plaintiffs’ competing summary judgment motion that sought a quick ruling in their favor.

 Attorney for our lawsuit against the EPA makes a short New Year's day presentation.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9zIiv_E2j0&feature=emb_logo

May 27, 2020

ORDER REGARDING SECOND AND THIRD DISCOVERY LETTERS

ORDER HOLDING PROCEEDINGS IN ABEYANCE

SECOND DECLARATION OF RICHARD P. WOYCHIK, Ph.D.