Beesley et al v. International Paper Company et al

Filing 437

ORDER denying 435 motion for leave to file amicus brief. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 11/17/2011. (msdi)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PAT BEESLEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 06-703-DRH

ORDER
HERNDON, Chief Judge:
Boeing Company has filed a motion to file an amicus brief in
opposition to plaintiffs' alternative motion to purse direct action for breach of
fiduciary duties (Doc. 435), contending that because the direct action motions in this
case and in Spano v. Boeing Co., No. 06-cv-743-DRH, "are based upon the same legal
theory and there are no material factual differences that distinguish the two motions,
this Court's decision here will likely determine the outcome of the direct action
motion in Spano." Accordingly, Boeing seeks leave to file an amicus brief "in order
to present arguments and authorities that complement the arguments that the
International Paper defendants advance." Otherwise, Boeing asserts that its "position
may not be effectively heard, and its due process rights in connection with the direct
action motion may be substantially prejudiced." Plaintiff's oppose Boeing's motion
(Doc. 436), disputing that Boeing's due process rights will be prejudiced because
Page 1 of 3

Boeing "position can be fully heard by simply filing its brief in its own case . . . before
the same District Judge." The Court agrees.
"The term 'amicus curiae' means friend of the court, not friend of a
party." Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 125 F.3d 1062, 1063 (7th
Cir. 1997) (opinion of Posner, J.). "An amicus brief should normally be allowed
when a party is not represented competently or is not represented at all, when the
amicus has an interest in some other case that may be affected by the decision of the
present case (though not enough affected to entitle the amicus to intervene and
become a party in the present case), or when the amicus has unique information or
perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties
are able to provide." Id. "Otherwise, leave to file an amicus curiae brief should be
denied." Id. The granting or denial of an application to intervene as amicus curiae
lies wholly within the discretion of the trial court. Clark v. Sandusky, 205 F.2d 915,
917 (7th Cir. 1953).
Here, Boeing does not contend that defendants are not represented
competently or that it has some unique information or perspective than can help the
Court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to provide. Rather,
Boeing believes that it has an interest in its case that may be affected by the decision
in this case and that by filing an amicus brief it will be able to “complement” the
arguments defendants advance. The Court finds that complementing defendants
arguments is not sufficient reason to allow an amicus brief. While at times this case
and Spano have been treated as companion cases, Boeing has failed to convince this
Page 2 of 3

Court that its attempt to file an amicus brief is nothing more than an attempt for the
defendants to get another bite at the apple, one of the policies behind denying a
party's brief. See Ryan, 125 F.3d at 1063 ("The vast majority of amicus briefs are
filed by allies of litigants and duplicate the arguments made in the litigants' briefs, in
effect merely extending the length of the litigant's brief. Such amicus briefs should
not be allowed. They are an abuse."); Voices for Choices v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co., 339 F.3d
542, 544 (7th Cir. 2003) (opinion of Posner, J.). As plaintiffs point out, if Boeing
wishes to be heard on this issue, there is nothing prohibiting Boeing from filing its
response to the direct action motion in its own case, but the Court will not allow
either party to gain an unfair advantage in this case or the Spano case by filing
amicus briefs that simply “complement” either parties’ positions. Thus, Boeing's
(Doc. 435) motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 17th day of November, 2011.
Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2011.11.17
11:19:10 -06'00'

Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 3 of 3