Order Denying Motion to File — Children's Health Defense v. Facebook, Inc., et al.

What This Document Is

A one-page Order Denying Motion to File Amicus Brief, entered May 7, 2021 by Judge Illston, resolving The Rutherford Institute's Doc. 89 motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief. The order is signed — Susan Illston's handwritten signature appears above the typed "SUSAN ILLSTON / United States District Judge" block, dated May 7, 2021. This is a real, entered order (not a proposed one).

Factual Summary

Citing Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), for the proposition that district courts have broad discretion to permit amicus briefs, and California by & through Becerra v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 381 F. Supp. 3d 1153, 1164 (N.D. Cal. 2019), for the standard that an amicus need only show its participation would be "useful or otherwise desirable to the court," Judge Illston exercised that discretion to DENY the Rutherford Institute's motion. The order states the court reviewed the proposed amicus brief and found it "addresses the same issues that have already been amply covered in the parties' voluminous briefing," making it not useful to the court.

Key Facts

Entered May 7, 2021, two days after the May 5, 2021 motion-to-dismiss hearing.
Resolves Dkt. No. 89 (Rutherford Institute's motion for leave to file amicus brief) by DENYING it.
Rationale: the proposed brief's state-action arguments duplicated issues already "amply covered" in the parties' own briefing on the SAC motions to dismiss.
Cites Hoptowit v. Ray (9th Cir. 1982) and California by & through Becerra v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior (N.D. Cal. 2019) on the amicus standard.
Signed by Illston, dated May 7, 2021.
Docket identifiers: 3:20-cv-05787-SI; Doc. 93.

Source Caveats

None; the extracted text is clean and complete.

Date: 2021-05-07

Full text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE,
Plaintiff,
v.

FACEBOOK INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.  20-cv-05787-SI

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE
AMICUS BRIEF
Re: Dkt. No. 89

The Rutherford Institute has filed a motion requesting leave to file an amicus brief.  “The
district court has broad discretion to permit amicus briefs.”  Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260
(9th Cir. 1982).  “There are no strict prerequisites that must be established prior to qualifying for
amicus status; an individual seeking to appear as amicus must merely make a showing that his
participation is useful or otherwise desirable to the court.”  California by & through Becerra v.
United States Dep’t of the Interior, 381 F. Supp. 3d 1153, 1164 (N.D. Cal. 2019).

The Court exercises its discretion and DENIES the motion to file an amicus brief.  The Court
has reviewed the proposed amicus brief and finds that it addresses the same issues that have already
been amply covered in the parties’ voluminous briefing, and thus that the amicus brief is not useful
to the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2021

______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
Case 3:20-cv-05787-SI   Document 93   Filed 05/07/21   Page 1 of 1

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.cand.364478.93.0.pdf
Size: 122,678 bytes
SHA-256: 945a4a30b9e2459d37e55e1b932f28dd8aed3b8df1c6f17b2d1f4d98ca3bd9e7
Our copy: gov.uscourts.cand.364478.93.0.pdf
Original: archive.org