San Francisco Baykeeper v. Sunnyvale

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER, Case No. 5:20-cv-00824-EJD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF 10 v.

11 CITY OF SUNNYVALE, et al., Re: ECF No. 281 Defendants. 12

13 In this water quality case, Plaintiff San Francisco Baykeeper alleges that the Cities of 14 Sunnyvale and Mountain View have violated certain terms in the permits that regulate the Cities’ 15 wastewater discharges. The Cities have filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s prior 16 rulings in this case based on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in City and County of San 17 Francisco v. EPA (“CCSF”), 145 S. Ct. 704 (2025). According to the Cities, this recent decision 18 shows that certain of the permit terms they are alleged to have violated are invalid. Two 19 California water agencies (Proposed Amici)1 have moved for leave to file an amicus brief on the 20 reconsideration motion. ECF No. 281. Defendants oppose. ECF No. 292. Having reviewed the 21 filings on this issue, the Court GRANTS leave to file an amicus brief. 22 District courts in this circuit grant leave to file amicus briefs when such briefs aid them in 23 considering “legal issues that have potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved” or 24 when proposed amici possess “unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond 25 [what] the lawyers for the parties are able to provide.” Macareno v. Thomas, 378 F. Supp. 3d 933, 26 27 1 The agencies are the California State Water Resources Control Board and the California 1 940 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (quoting NGV Gaming, Ltd. v. Upstream Point Molate, LLC, 355 F. Supp. 2 2d 1061, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2005)). Both are true here. Questions about the enforcement of water 3 quality standards will likely reverberate well beyond the immediate parties. And Proposed Amici 4 have a unique perspective to add based on their role in overseeing water regulation in California. 5 Their amicus brief would therefore aid the Court in its decisionmaking. 6 None of the Cities’ objections are convincing. 7 First, the Cities argue that the proposed amicus brief is duplicative of arguments that 8 Baykeeper has already made in opposition to the reconsideration motion. To be sure, there is 9 some overlap. But some overlap is natural. In any case, much of the proposed amicus brief 10 provides detail and perspective on the relevant regulatory regimes that are absent from the parties’ 11 briefs. Thus, the proposed brief is not merely duplicative. 12 Second, the Cities allege that permitting the proposed amicus brief would be prejudicial 13 since the Cities would need to address Proposed Amici’s arguments on a short timeline. However, 14 the Court is not aware of any rule or principle that gives parties the right to file a separate brief 15 directly responding to amici. Typically, when a party wishes to address amicus arguments, they 16 do so in the standard opposition or reply brief. Moreover, to the extent Proposed Amici’s 17 arguments overlap with those of Baykeeper, responding to those overlapping arguments should 18 pose little more burden on the Cities than responding to Baykeeper’s arguments alone. The Court 19 finds that the Cities would not suffer meaningful prejudice from permitting the amicus brief. 20 To the extent that the Cities imply Proposed Amici’s brief is untimely, the Court disagrees. 21 There is no local rule or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that governs amicus practice in district 22 court. But in the Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court, amicus briefs are due 7 days after the 23 principal brief of the party being supported is filed. Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(6); Sup. Ct. R. 37(3). 24 Here, Proposed Amici filed their brief 7 days after Baykeeper filed its opposition. Therefore, the 25 proposed amicus brief is timely. 26 Third, the Cities suggest that the proposed amicus brief was not authorized because 27 Proposed Amici’s public meeting agendas did not contain action items regarding this case. In 1 amicus brief without permission from its client. That is a serious accusation, and the Court will 2 || require much more evidence than some meeting agendas before crediting such a claim. After all, 3 it is far from clear that Proposed Amici even needed to publicly announce that they were 4 || considering filing an amicus brief, so the absence of action items regarding this case may mean 5 nothing at all. 6 Finally, the Cities take issue with the fact that Proposed Amici have sued San Francisco in 7 a separate lawsuit and filed an amicus brief before the Supreme Court in CCSF, both advancing 8 similar interests to what Proposed Amici advance now. The Court sees no problem with this; 9 entities will often seek to advance their interests in multiple forums. 10 11 In conclusion, the Court GRANTS leave to file an amicus brief and deems as filed the 12 || proposed amicus brief at ECF No. 281-1. In their opposition, the Cities requested leave to file an 5 13 opposition brief rebutting the amicus brief. The Court does not permit the Cities to file a separate 14 || brief, but they may respond to Proposed Amici’s arguments in their reply in support of 3 15 || reconsideration. So far as the Cities believe the standard 15-page limit for replies is not enough to 16 address both Baykeeper’s opposition and the amicus brief, the Court expands the limit to 18 pages. IT IS SO ORDERED. || Datea: May 2, 2025 19 20 apo). EDWARD J. DAVILA 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No: 5:20-cv-0N008294-FID