Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T California v. John Reynolds, in his official capacity as President of the California Public Utilities Commission; Darcie L. Houk, Karen Douglas, Matthew Baker, and Christine

Opinion

PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE Case No.: 26cv3148-LL-JAC COMPANY d/b/a AT&T CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS v. FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEFS AS AMICUS CURIAE JOHN REYNOLDS, in his official capacity as President of the California

Public Utilities Commission; DARCIE L. [ECF Nos. 17, 33] HOUK, KAREN DOUGLAS, MATTHEW BAKER, and CHRISTINE HARADA, in their official capacities as Commissioners of the California Public Utilities Commission; ROB BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Defendants. Before the Court are two motions for leave to file briefs as amicus curiae filed by (1) USTelecom – The Broadband Association (“USTelecom”) in support of Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction [ECF No. 17] and (2) Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), The Utility Reform Network (TURN), Communications Workers of America (CWA), and the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) (collectively “County Group”) in support of Defendants [ECF No. 33-1]. No opposition was filed to USTelecom’s Motion. Defendants filed an Opposition to the County Group’s Motion [ECF No. 34], and the County Group filed a Reply [ECF No. 35]. The classic role of amicus curiae is to “assist[] in a case of general public interest, supplement[] the efforts of counsel, and draw[] the court’s attention to law that escaped consideration.” Miller-Wohl Co. v. Comm’r of Labor & Indus. State of Mont., 694 F.2d 203, 204 (9th Cir. 1982). “The district court has broad discretion to appoint amici curiae.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “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) (citation omitted). The Court finds it appropriate to grant USTelecom’s unopposed Motion. USTelecom members include communication businesses that share the same interest as Plaintiff in grandfathering legacy telephone service over copper wire networks. ECF No. 17 at 2. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS USTelecom’s Motion. See Nat’l Petrochemical & Refiners Ass’n v. Goldstene, No. CVF10-163 LJO DLB, 2010 WL 2228471, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 3, 2010) (“[P]articipation of amicus curiae may be appropriate where legal issues in a case have potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved.” (citation omitted)). The proposed amicus brief submitted simultaneously with USTelecom’s Motion [ECF No. 17-1] shall be deemed filed. Similarly, the Court also finds it appropriate to grant the County Group’s Motion because the legal issues in this case “have potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved.” See id. The County Group members contend they will be harmed if Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction of California’s carrier of last resort rules is granted. ECF No 35 at 2. Although the County Group filed its Motion two days after Plaintiff filed its reply brief on the motion for preliminary injunction, Plaintiff submitted responses to the | || proposed brief in its Opposition to the amicus Motion. See Mobley v. Workday, Inc., No. 23-CV-00770-RFL, 2026 WL 636719, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2026), motion to certify appeal denied sub nom. DEREK L. MOBLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WORKDAY, INC., Defendant., No. 23-CV-00770-RFL, 2026 WL 1906986 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2026) (granting leave to file an amicus brief that was submitted after a reply when the opposing party had the “opportunity to oppose both the motion and the merits of the amicus brief”). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the County Group’s Motion, and the proposed amicus brief filed simultaneously with its Motion [ECF No. 33 at 5-34] shall be deemed filed. Dated: July 15, 2026 NO 1] QF | Honorable Linda Lopez United States District Judge