State of Washington, et al., v. Trump., et al
ORDER REGARDING THE FILING OF AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS by Judge James L. Robart. (PM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,
CASE NO. C17-0141JLR
ORDER REGARDING THE
FILING OF AMICUS CURIAE
DONALD J. 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 it 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. Cal.
ORDER - 1
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, then it is unlikely the court will
grant leave to file an amicus curiae brief.
It is so ORDERED.
Dated this 14th day of February, 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?