Gamestop Inc. v. Bridgett, et al.,

Filing 30

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 5/11/2017 ORDERING that Hopp's motion for permission for electronic case filing (ECF No. 23 ) is DENIED. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GAMESTOP, INC.,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

No. 2:17-cv-00719-TLN-KJN

Plaintiff,
v.
STEPHANIE A. BRIDGETT, District
Attorney, Shasta County District
Attorney’s Office, in her official capacity
and MICHAEL HESTRIN, District
Attorney, Riverside County District
Attorney’s Office, in his official capacity,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PERMISSION FOR ELECTRONIC CASE
FILING OF AMICUS BRIEF

Defendants.

19
20
21
22

This matter is before the Court pursuant to individual Richard Hopp’s (“Hopp”) motion
for permission to participate in electronic case filing as an amicus curie. (ECF No. 23.)
Hopp’s motion is a scant two-page document in which he states that he wishes to

23

participate in electronic case filing as an amicus curie. (ECF No. 23 at 1.) He adds that he agrees

24

to abide by the requirements of the electronic filing system, and that he has the necessary

25

equipment, such as a computer with internet access, a printer, a scanner, and word-processing and

26

pdf convert software. (ECF No. 23 at 1–2.)

27
28

There is no inherent right to file an amicus curiae brief with the Court. “The district court
has broad discretion to appoint amici curie.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir.
1

1

1982). Courts may find amicus briefs from nonparties useful if the amicus has a unique

2

perspective or information or the brief concerns legal issues that have ramifications beyond the

3

parties. Safari Club Int’l v. Harris, No. 2:14-CV-01856-GEB-AC, 2015 WL 1255491, at *1

4

(E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2015). “An amicus curiae brief which brings relevant matter to the attention

5

of the Court that has not already been brought to its attention by the parties is of considerable help

6

to the Court. An amicus curiae brief which does not serve this purpose simply burdens the staff

7

and facilities of the Court and its filing is not favored.” Fed. R. App. P. 29 Advisory Comm.’s

8

Note (b).

9

Hopp has not provided his proposed brief to the Court. He has not explained what filing

10

or aspect of the case he wishes to address and has not discussed why his participation would be

11

helpful to the Court. Hopp has not provided the Court with any information that would allow the

12

Court to grant him permission to electronically file briefs to participate in this matter.

13

For the foregoing reasons, this Court hereby DENIES Hopp’s motion for permission for

14

electronic case filing (ECF No. 23).

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: May 11, 2017

18
19
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2