Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. United States of America ( 2009 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________________________________________
)
COMMONWEALTH OF THE )
NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1572 (PLF)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on (1) the motion of Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands Descent for Self-Government and Indigenous Rights, Inc. (“CNMI
Descent”) to file a brief and participate in this action as amicus curiae, (2) CNMI Descent’s
request for time to present oral argument at the upcoming motions hearing, and (3) the parties’
joint motion for entry of an order governing the presentation of oral argument at the upcoming
motions hearing.1 The Court will grant CNMI Descent’s motion to file a brief and participate as
amicus curiae, deny CNMI Descent’s request for time to present oral argument, and modify the
parties’ proposed schedule governing the presentation of oral argument at the upcoming motions
hearing. The Court will also reschedule the upcoming motions hearing to begin at 9:30 a.m.
(rather than 10:00 a.m.) on March 12, 2009.
1
Plaintiff does not oppose CNMI Descent’s motion to participate as amicus curiae.
See Plaintiff’s Response to Motion by CNMI Descent for Leave to Participate as Amicus Curiae.
Defendants do oppose that motion. See Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Leave to
Participate as Amicus Curiae.
As all acknowledge, this Court has “broad discretion” in determining whether to
permit a party to participate in a lawsuit as amicus curiae. Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, 519 F. Supp. 2d 89, 93 (D.D.C. 2007). The filing of an
amicus brief should be permitted if it will assist the judge “by presenting ideas, arguments,
theories, insights, facts or data that are not to be found in the parties’ briefs.” Voices for Choices
v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 339 F.3d 542, 545 (7th Cir. 2003). See also Ryan v. Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, 125 F.3d 1062, 1063 (7th Cir. 1997) (“An amicus brief should
normally be allowed 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.”). Such briefs generally
are not permitted where they present “no unique information or perspective” that could assist the
Court. Georgia v. Ashcroft, 195 F. Supp. 2d 25, 33 (D.D.C. 2002) (three-judge court), vacated
on other grounds, 539 U.S. 461 (2003).
Upon careful consideration, the Court concludes that CNMI Descent’s proposed
amicus brief will assist the Court in this matter because it includes unique arguments not to be
found in the parties’ briefs. The Court therefore will permit CNMI Descent to participate in this
matter as amicus curiae by filing its proposed amicus brief. The Court further concludes,
however, that it need not hear oral argument from CNMI Descent at the upcoming motions
hearing in order to obtain the full benefit of CNMI Descent’s views. For that reason, the Court
will not permit CNMI Descent to present oral argument at the upcoming motions hearing.
2
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that CNMI Descent’s Motion for Leave to Participate as Amicus
Curiae [29] is GRANTED. CNMI Descent shall be permitted to participate in this matter as
amicus curiae by filing its proposed amicus brief; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that CNMI Descent’s Request for Time to Present Oral
Argument [44] is DENIED; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motions hearing, currently scheduled to begin at
10:00 a.m. on March 12, 2009, will instead begin at 9:30 a.m. on March 12, 2009; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the following schedule shall govern the presentation
of oral argument at the upcoming motions hearing:
1. Plaintiff shall make a 40-minute presentation of its claims and
its arguments in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction.
2. Defendants shall make a 40-minute argument in support of their
motion to dismiss and in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for a
preliminary injunction.
3. The Court will recess for 15 minutes.
4. Plaintiff shall make a 20-minute rebuttal in opposition to
defendants’ motion to dismiss and in reply to defendants’
opposition to plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
5. Defendants shall make a 20-minute rebuttal in reply to
plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss.
SO ORDERED.
/s/_______________________________
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
United States District Judge
DATE: March 6, 2009
3