United States District Court, S.D. California
MATTHEW JONES; THOMAS FURRH; KYLE YAMAMOTO; PWGG, L.P. d.b.a. POWAY WEAPONS AND GEAR and PWG RANGE; NORTH COUNTY SHOOTING CENTER, INC.; BEEBE FAMILY ARMS AND MUNITIONS LLC d.b.a. BFAM and BEEBE FAMILY ARMS AND MUNITIONS; FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INC.; FIREARMS POLICY FOUNDATION; CALIFORNIA GUN RIGHTS FOUNDATION and SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, Plaintiffs,
XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, et al., Defendant.
(1) DENYING GIFFORDS LAW CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE'S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BURIAE BRIEF [DOC. 26] (2)
DENYING EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY SUPPORT FUND'S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF [DOC. 27] (3) DENYING
BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE'S MOTION TO
PARTICIPATE AS AMICUS CURIAE [DOC. 33]
M. JAMES LORENZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court are three separate motions for leave seeking
to participate in the litigation regarding Plaintiffs'
currently-pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction [doc.
21]. Docs. 26, 27, 33. After reviewing each motion, the Court
DENIES each motion.
“district court has broad discretion to appoint
amici curiae.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237,
1260 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds, Sandin
v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “[T]he
consideration of an amicus brief is solely within the
discretion of the court and is seldom appropriate at the
level of the trial level where the parties are adequately
represented by experienced counsel. ForestKeeeper v.
Elliott, 50 F.Supp.3d 1371, 1380 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
(citing Ryan v. CFTC, 125 F.3d 1062, 1063 (7th Cir.
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (“Giffords Law
Center”) seeks leave to file an amicus curiae
brief in support of Defendant's Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction [doc. 25].
Doc. 26 at 2. Giffords Law Center is a non-profit policy
organization dedicated to defending laws to effectively
reduce gun violence. Id. As such, the Court finds
the Giffords Law Center is more akin to a partisan advocate
than an objective third party. In fact, the instant motion
asserts that the amicus brief “present[s] data
and social science that support California's restrictions
on 18-to-20-year-olds' ability to purchase an possess
firearms.” Doc. 26 at 4. While this Court recognizes
that “[t]here is no rule . . . that amici must be
totally disinterested[, ]” Plaintiffs' objection
demonstrates that the Giffords Law Center's position
should be more accurately termed friend to Defendant Xavier
Becerra than a friend to the Court. Accordingly, the Court
will not consider the Giffords Law Center's
amicus brief as its' usefulness is diminished at
the trial level due to its obvious partisanship. Therefore,
Giffords Law Center's motion for leave to file an
amicus curiae brief [doc. 26] is DENIED.
for Gun Safety Support Fund (“Everytown”)
similarly requested leave to file an amicus curiae
brief in support of Defendant's opposition to
Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion. See
Doc. 27. Everytown contends that its brief will provide the
Court with the historical backdrop necessary to evaluate the
Second Amendment challenges to firearms regulations.
Id. at 3. However, this is not a perspective beyond
what Defendant's attorneys could provide on their own.
Moreover, like Giffords Law Center, Everytown's
partisanship is apparent. The Court finds that the
amicus brief may prejudice Plaintiffs on the trial
level because the brief allows Defendant to have a proverbial
“another bite of the apple” due to partisan
influence. See Eugene Temchenko, Discovering the
Truth Behind an Amicus Brief, 94 N.D. L. Rev. 95, 104
(2019) (“[A]n amicus brief would focus the court's
attention on the relevant piece of evidence as well as
amplify its effect. Moreover, the very language that an
amicus uses can influence the court.”) Accordingly,
Everytown's motion for leave to file an amicus
curiae brief [doc. 27] is DENIED.
also seeks leave to participate as amicus curiae and
to file a Brief in support of Defendant's Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
See Doc. 33. Unlike the other movants, Brady
conferred with the parties' counsel and obtained
Plaintiffs' counsel's consent to file the
amicus brief on the following conditions: (1) the
Court's permission; (2) a filing deadline of January 3,
2020; (3) a 13-page limit on Brady's brief; and (4)
allowing Plaintiffs to either file a separate opposition to
the Brady's brief not to exceed seven (7) pages or file
one reply brief not to exceed seventeen (17) pages in order
to address both the opposition and amicus brief.
Id. at 4. The Supreme Court recognizes that
“district courts have the inherent authority to manage
their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient
and expedient resolution of cases.” Dietz v.
Boudin, 135 S.Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016) (citations omitted).
The Court finds that allowance of Brady's amicus
brief and proposed briefing schedule would disrupt the
efficient administration of this case at the trial level as
granting this motion would necessarily mandate Plaintiffs to
submit filing in violation of this Court's Local Rules.
Civil L.R. 7.1.h. ("No reply memorandum will exceed ten
(10) pages without leave of the judge."). As such, the
Court DENIES Brady's motion [doc. 33] in its inherent
authority to manage its docket and its discretion regarding
the Court hereby DENIES five (5) Requests to Appear Pro Hac
Vice [docs. 41-45] submitted by attorneys attempting to make
appearance for Everytown. The Court will not be considering
Everytown's amicus brief for the reasons stated
above. Additionally, the Clerk's Office approved these
requests in error as the form applications are incomplete.
Each request fails to disclose that the requesting attorney
has requested pro hac vice status previously which was
denied. As such, these requests shall not be approved. The
Clerk's Office is instructed to again deny these