Another employee of the same defendant employer is not entitled to intervene as of right in a PAGA suit brought by a different employee of that employer in order to challenge the settlement to which the latter employee and the employer have agreed. To intervene as of right under FRCivP 24(a)(2), a party must show (among other things) that his interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties to the action. Simply disagreeing with the plaintiff employee’s litigation strategy or claiming that the settlement amount is too low is not enough to show inadequate representation. Here, though little formal discovery was conducted, the employer gave plaintiff substantial informal discovery and the discovery other plaintiffs had obtained in parallel litigation before plaintiff agreed to the settlement. So lack of formal discovery didn’t show inadequate representation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying permissive intervention as plaintiff had obtained all of the discovery provided to the would-be intervener, so intervention would not significantly contribute to the factual development of the case.)