Wells Fargo & Company v. United States of America

Filing 88

ORDER granting Association of Corporate Counsel's 35 Motion to File Amicus Curiae Brief; granting Clearing House Association, LLC 38 Motion to File Amicus Curiae Brief (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on May 31, 2011. (DML)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY,

Misc. No. 10-57 (JRT/JJG)
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS
TO FILE AMICUS BRIEFS

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

Andrew T. Gardner and Mark A. Hager, WELLS FARGO &
COMPANY, 90 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, MN 55479; Derek
Ho and Reid M. Figel, KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD,
EVANS & FIGEL, 1615 M Street Northwest, Suite 400, Washington, DC
20036; Martin S. Chester and Walter A. Pickhardt, FAEGRE &
BENSON LLP, 90 South Seventh Street, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN
55402-3901, for plaintiff.
James Strong and Robert J. Kovacev, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TAX DIVISION, Benjamin Franklin
Station, Post Office Box 55, Washington, DC, 20044, for defendant.
Richard P. Bress and Robert Malionek, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP,
885 Third Ave, New York, NY 10022-4834; Steve W. Gaskins,
GASKINS, BENNETT, BIRRELL, SCHUPP, LLP, 333 South Seventh
Street, Suite 2900, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for amicus curiae Association
of Corporate Counsel.
Bruce E. Clark and Jennifer Sheinfeld Goodfellow, SULLIVAN &
CROMWELL LLP, 125 Broad Street, New York, NY 10004; Sarah E.
Bushnell and Timothy D. Kelly, KELLEY AND HANNAH, PA, 80
South Eighth Street, Suite 3720, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for amicus
curiae The Clearing House Association LLC.

This matter is before the Court on motions by the Clearing House Association,
LLC and the Association of Corporate Counsel to file amicus curiae briefs in the instant
litigation. The government opposes the motions. All parties agree that the Court has the
21

discretion to allow the filing of amicus curiae briefs. Jin v. Ministry of State Sec., 557
F. Supp. 2d 131, 138 n.5 (D.D.C. 2008); Fed. R. App. P. 29. The Court is aware that the
associations are not impartial, as argued by the government, however, “by the nature of
things an amicus is not normally impartial and there is no rule that amici must be totally
disinterested.” Tafas v. Dudas, 511 F. Supp. 2d 652, 661 (E.D. Va. 2007) (alterations and
internal quotation marks omitted).
Given the broad policy implications, the lack of precedent in the Eighth Circuit,
and the Circuit split elsewhere, the Court finds that the briefs will be useful in
understanding the broader policy concerns of enforcement of this particular summons.
See Mausolf v. Babbitt, 158 F.R.D. 143, 148 (D. Minn. 1994), rev’d on other grounds, 85
F.3d 1295 (8th Cir. 1996) (finding the putative amicus party had the “knowledge,
experience and a perspective, all of which are specifically related to [the issues], which
may assist the Court in its resolution of the issues raised by the parties in this case”). The
Court also finds timely the information to be offered, because amicus curiae status was
requested prior to the evidentiary hearing. See Jones v. Roper, 311 F.3d 923, 927 (8th Cir.
2002) (denying amicus status for lack of timeliness). Therefore, the Court grants the
motions.
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

The Association of Corporate Counsel’s motion to file amicus curiae brief

[Docket No. 35] is GRANTED.
2.

The Clearing House Association, LLC motion to file amicus curiae brief

[Docket No. 38] is GRANTED.
-2-

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the amicus curia briefs shall be filed within
thirty (30) days of this Order.

DATED: May 31, 2011
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.

____s/
____
JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge

-3-