Ali et al v. Trump et al
ORDER REGARDING THE FILING OF AMICUS BRIEFS by Judge James L. Robart. (PM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
JUWEIYA ABDIAZIZ ALI, et al.,
CASE NO. C17-0135JLR
ORDER REGARDING THE
FILING OF AMICUS BRIEFS
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,
From the date this order is entered, the following procedures shall apply to the
filing of any amicus curiae brief in this proceeding. No one shall file an amicus curiae
brief unless the brief is accompanied by a motion seeking the court’s permission to do so.
The proposed amicus curiae brief shall be attached as an exhibit to the motion seeking
leave to file the brief. The purpose of requiring a motion for leave to file an amicus
curiae brief is so that the court can analyze whether a proposed amicus curiae brief would
provide unique or helpful information beyond what the parties can provide. See, e.g.,
NGV Gaming, Ltd. v. Upstream Point Molate, LLC, 335 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1067 (N.D.
ORDER - 1
Cal. 2005) (stating that district courts may consider amicus briefs “concerning legal
issues that have potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved or if the
amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that
the lawyers for the parties can provide” (internal quotations omitted)). At least one
attorney who is admitted to practice in this court shall sign the motion seeking leave to
file the amicus curiae brief, as well as the amicus brief itself. Finally, the motion seeking
leave to file an amicus curiae brief shall specifically identify the pending motion to which
the amicus curiae brief relates. If no motion is presently pending, the court is unlikely to
grant leave to file an amicus curiae brief.
It is so ORDERED.
Dated this 30th day of March, 2017.
JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge
ORDER - 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?