2RESPONSE TO EFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE CASE NO. 4:12-cv-2049-PJH
attempting to file in an action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
See Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. Cary Tabora and Schuyler Whetstone
, No. 12-2234(S.D. N.Y. June 15, 2012), ECF No. 20. By way of example, the EFF’s motion for leave to file inthis case still contains references to the plaintiff in the
Liberty Media Holdings
case. (ECF No. 18 at3) (“EFF files this Motion in advance of the due date for AFH’s opposition to Defendant Hatfield’smotion, in order to afford
an opportunity to respond.”) (emphasis added). Because negligenceactions are intensely fact-specific, this Court can be assured that the EFF’s xeroxed brief will onlyserve to obscure the issues and delay this action. Because
the EFF fails to demonstrate that its proposed motion fits the limited circumstances which may make participation by an
appropriate, the Court should deny the EFF’s motion for leave to file as one. Federal courts properlydeny the EFF’s attempts to interfere with district court level litigation.
See, e.g., Jones Day v. Blockshopper LLC
, No. 08-4572, 2008 WL 4925644, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2008) (denying theEFF’s motion for leave to file an
The Court retains full discretion over whether to allow or deny the participation of an
, and should carefully consider the prospect of allowing a special interest group to participatehere, especially in litigation at the district court level. “The term ‘amicus curiae’ means friend of thecourt, not friend of a party.”
Long v. Coast Resorts, Inc.
, 49 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1178 (D. Nev. 1999)(denying leave to file an
brief). Courts deny motions for leave to file amicus briefswhen they determine that the briefs are filed in support of one of the parties or are prejudicial to theother party.
Leigh v. Engle
, 535 F. Supp. 418, 420 (N.D. Ill Jan. 22, 1982) (“Indeed, if the proffer comes from an individual with a partisan, rather than impartial view, the motion for leave to file anamicus brief is to be denied, in keeping with the principle that an amicus must be a friend of thecourt and not a friend of a party to the cause.”);
Strougo v. Scudder, Stevens & Clark, Inc.
, 1997 WL473566 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 1997) (
citing Vulcan Society of New York City Fire Dep’t, Inc. v. Civil Service Comm’n
, 490 F.2d 387, 391 (2d Cir. 1973).The claim that the EFF would like to challenge is a negligence claim, which are necessarilyfact-specific. At the district court level, when issues of fact predominate,
briefs are highly
Case4:12-cv-02049-PJH Document19 Filed07/06/12 Page2 of 6