Sierra Club Inc et al v. BNSF Railway Company

Filing 276

ORDER by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour granting Association of American Railroads' 226 Motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief. Brief to be filed within 3 days of this order. (PM)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

SIERRA CLUB, a California nonprofit
corporation, et al.,

10
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13

CASE NO. C13-967-JCC
ORDER GRANTING ASSOCIATION
OF AMERICAN RAILROADS’
MOTION TO FILE AN AMICUS
CURIAE BRIEF

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, a
Delaware corporation,

14

Defendant.

15

This matter comes before the Court on the Association of American Railroads’ motion

16

17 for leave to file an amicus curiae brief (Dkt. No. 226). Having thoroughly considered the parties’
18 briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS
19 the motion for the reasons explained herein.
20 I.

BACKGROUND

21

The above-captioned matter is a Clean Water Act “citizen” suit in which seven

22 environmental advocacy organizations allege that BNSF Railway Company—an operator of
23 railway lines that run from Wyoming to Washington—violates federal law by allowing its
24 railcars to discharge coal and related pollutants into protected waterways within Washington.
25 (Dkt. No. 113.) Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against BNSF under the Clean
26 Water Act for the allegedly unpermitted discharges, as well as “remedial relief, the imposition of
ORDER GRANTING ASSOCIATION OF
AMERICAN RAILROADS’ MOTION TO FILE AN
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
PAGE - 1

1 civil penalties, and the award of costs, including attorney and expert witness fees.” (Id. at ¶ 6.)
2

On August 19, 2016, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 197

3 and 200.) Defendant BNSF argues that Plaintiffs’ requests for civil penalties and injunctive relief
4 are preempted by the ICC Termination Act. (See Dkt. No. 200 at 33–47.) On August 22, 2016,
5 the Association of American Railroads (AAR) filed a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae
6 brief regarding “the application of the preemption provision of the ICC Termination Act . . . to
7 Plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief.” (Dkt. No. 226 at 2.)
8 II.

DISCUSSION

9

District courts have “broad discretion” regarding the appointment of amici. Hoptowit v.

10 Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515
11 U.S. 472 (1995). District courts frequently welcome amicus briefs from non-parties “concerning
12 legal issues that have potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved.” Skokomish
13 Indian Tribe v. Goldmark, 2013 WL 5720053, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 21, 2013) (quoting Cobell
14 v. Norton, 246 F. Supp. 2d 59, 62 (D.D.C. 2003) and Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading
15 Comm'n, 125 F.3d 1062, 1064 (7th Cir. 1997)). The Ninth Circuit has said “there is no rule that
16 amici must be totally disinterested.” Funbus Sys., Inc. v. State of Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 801
17 F.2d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted); Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1260 (upholding
18 district court’s appointment of amicus curiae, even though amicus entirely supported only one
19 party’s arguments).
20

Plaintiffs argue that the amicus brief should not be accepted because “it is a collusive

21 attempt by a trade association to advocate against development and application of pollution
22 control technology necessary to prevent discharges at issue in this case.” (Dkt. No. 249 at 2.)
23 However, the Court finds that AAR merely “take[s] a legal position and present[s] legal
24 arguments in support of [that position].” Funbus, 801 F.2d at 1125 (citation omitted). Moreover,
25 Plaintiffs’ argument that the amicus brief should be denied because of AAR’s interest in the
26 outcome of this case is without merit. An amicus does not need to be wholly disinterested to file
ORDER GRANTING ASSOCIATION OF
AMERICAN RAILROADS’ MOTION TO FILE AN
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
PAGE - 2

1 an amicus brief. Further, the preemption issue could have ramifications beyond the current
2 parties, making AAR’s participation as an amicus appropriate here. Therefore, the Court grants
3 AAR’s motion for leave to file an amicus brief.
4 III.

CONCLUSION

5

For the foregoing reasons, Association of American Railroads’ motion for leave to file an

6 amicus curiae brief (Dkt. No. 226) is GRANTED. Association of American Railroads filed an
7 amicus brief as an exhibit to its motion for leave. (Dkt. No. 226-1.) Association of American
8 Railroads is ORDERED to file that amicus brief (Dkt. No. 226-1) with the Court on its docket
9 within 3 days of this order.
10

DATED this 13th day of September 2016.

11
12
13

A

14
15
16

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER GRANTING ASSOCIATION OF
AMERICAN RAILROADS’ MOTION TO FILE AN
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
PAGE - 3