Children's Health Defense v. Facebook Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE, Case No. 20-cv-05787-SI 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE 9 v. AMICUS BRIEF 10 FACEBOOK INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 89 11 Defendants. 12

13 The Rutherford Institute has filed a motion requesting leave to file an amicus brief. “The 14 || district court has broad discretion to permit amicus briefs.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 3 15 || (9th Cir. 1982). “There are no strict prerequisites that must be established prior to qualifying for a 16 || amicus status; an individual seeking to appear as amicus must merely make a showing that his 3 17 || participation is useful or otherwise desirable to the court.” California by & through Becerra v. 18 United States Dep’t of the Interior, 381 F. Supp. 3d 1153, 1164 (N.D. Cal. 2019). 19 The Court exercises its discretion and DENIES the motion to file an amicus brief. The Court 20 || has reviewed the proposed amicus brief and finds that it addresses the same issues that have already 21 || been amply covered in the parties’ voluminous briefing, and thus that the amicus brief is not useful 22 || to the Court. 23 Gn. lite 26 Dated: May 7, 2021 SUSAN ILLSTON 27 United States District Judge 28