Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08011/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08011-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1 Counsel is advised that said request should have been filed in the form of a motion.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Center for Biological Diversity,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

United States Bureau of Land

Management, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-CV-8011-PCT-PGR

 ORDER

Currently before the Court is the request1

 by the parties to re-set a scheduling

conference in this and the related case, The Wilderness Society v. U.S. Bureau of Land

Management, Case No. 3:09-CV-08010-PGR (D. Ariz.). Also before the Court is the Motion

for Amicus Curiae Status filed by Safari Club International (“SCI”). The Court reserved

determination in the amicus matter until receiving notification regarding the matter of

settlement. Upon receipt of this recent notification that settlement is no longer viable at this

time, the Court has made its decision regarding the pending amicus motion. (Doc. 56.) 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

The Court initially scheduled a case management conference in this case and in the

related case, The Wilderness Society v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Case No.

3:09-CV-08010-PGR (D. Ariz.), for February 8, 2010. Prior to the conference, the parties

initiated settlement discussions and filed a motion requesting that the Court postpone the

Case 3:09-cv-08011-PGR Document 73 Filed 04/12/10 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

conference to allow the parties time to make an initial determination as to whether they

would engage in extended settlement negotiations. On January 29, 2010, the Court granted

the parties’ motion and ordered the parties to submit a status report regarding the settlement

negotiations by March 8, 2010. The Court further ordered that, in addition to the status

report, the parties should either request a stay to allow for extended settlement negotiations

or, if the parties do not intend to engage in extended negotiations, submit a request to re-set

the scheduling conference. On March 8, 2010, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion to

extend the deadline until April 8, 2010 to submit a request for stay or a request for a case

management conference and revised case management report. On April 8, 2010, the parties

filed the pending request that the Court set a scheduling conference, maintaining that “it does

not appear that settlement is likely.” Accordingly, a scheduling conference has been

scheduled for Monday, April 26, 2010, at 11:30 a.m.

AMICUS CURIAE

In its Motion, SCI asserts an interest in hunting using lead ammunition and motorized

vehicles in the Arizona Strip District, an area which includes the Grand Canyon-Parashant

and Vermillion Cliffs National Monuments (“the Monuments”). SCI argues that the Court

should allow it to participate in the case as an amicus curiae because its interests could be

affected by this Court’s rulings and its participation in the case may assist the Court’s

resolution of the pending legal claims. Defendants take no position on whether SCI should

be granted status as an amicus curiae. However, Defendants request that the Court impose

the same conditions on SCI’s participation in this case as the Court imposed on the National

Rifle Association’s (“NRA”) participation as an intervenor. In short, Defendants maintain

that SCI should not be permitted to introduce extra-record materials or extraneous claims or

Case 3:09-cv-08011-PGR Document 73 Filed 04/12/10 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 More specifically, Defendants respond that the role of an amicus curiae should be

even more limited than the role of an intervenor. They request that SCI’s role be limited to

filing responsive legal briefs that may assist the Court in resolving the issues before it and

the filing of dispositive motions or raising new claims should be prohibited.

- 3 -

issues into the case.2 Furthermore, they seek to limit SCI’s role to filing responsive legal

briefs addressing the positions of the parties.

A district court has broad discretion to permit individuals or entities to participate in

a case as amici curiae. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982). An amicus

curiae is not a party to the case. Miller-Wohl Co. v. Comm’r of Labor and Indus., 694 F.2d

203, 204 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the role of an amicus curiae is to provide assistance in a

case of general interest, supplement the efforts of counsel in the case, and draw the court’s

attention to legal arguments that have escaped consideration. Id.; Funbus Sys., Inc. v. Cal.

Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 801 F.2d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 1986).

SCI seeks to participate in this case “primarily to address the lead ammunition claim,

but may also want to comment on the off-road vehicle (“ORV”) issue, at least to the extent

it implicates hunting interests.” SCI maintains that it will “defend the Federal Defendants’

decision to continue the use of traditional ammunition for hunting and to allow

well-regulated use of ORVs in the Arizona Strip.” It states that it may address the adverse

impact that a decision against the Federal Defendants could have on hunting and

conservation opportunities. SCI has interests and experience in the legal issues related to the

reintroduction of threatened or endangered species and regarding the impact of such

reintroductions on hunting and conservation efforts.

Case 3:09-cv-08011-PGR Document 73 Filed 04/12/10 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 The Court notes that in its motion, SCI confirmed that it does not intend to file

independent dispositive motions or raise new claims.

- 4 -

 Defendants request that SCI should not be permitted to expand the scope of the

current proceedings. The Court agrees. As an amicus, SCI will not be a party and will have

a limited role in the litigation. Miller-Wohl Co., 694 F.2d at 204. SCI shall not be permitted

to file pleadings, motions, or oppositions to motions, or otherwise participate in a manner

reserved for the parties in the case. SCI may file responsive briefs aimed at aiding the Court

in analyzing relevant issues that have not been emphasized by the parties, and based upon

its special expertise, may explain the potential impact of decisions on a group. SCI is

prohibited from filing duplicative arguments, as that will only serve to congest the court and

waste valuable time and resources. As to the request that SCI should not be permitted to

introduce extra-record materials outside of the administrative record prepared by the

agencies, the Court agrees.3

Defendants further request that the Court limit SCI’s role to the filing of supporting

legal briefs addressing the positions of the parties. As stated above, SCI is limited to filing

responsive briefs; however, the briefs will not be limited to what Defendants pose,

“addressing the positions of the parties.” SCI’s participation in this matter is meant to

provide the Court with special insight with regard to the relevant issues at hand. SCI is not

permitted to expand the scope of the current proceedings. However, SCI does not work for

and is not directly associated with the parties and therefore cannot be bound to addressing

only the parties’ positions. Furthermore, it is possible that SCI will shed light on matters that

Case 3:09-cv-08011-PGR Document 73 Filed 04/12/10 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 The parties are directed to Document 15 in 09-CV-8010 for more specific details

regarding the scheduling conference. The Court notes that it has received the parties’

Revised Joint Case Management Report.

- 5 -

the parties themselves are not able to do and in a way that will aid the Court in resolving the

pending matters.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a scheduling conference has been scheduled for

Monday, April 26, 2010, at 11:30 a.m., in Courtroom 601, Phoenix, Arizona.4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING SCI’s Motion for Amicus Curiae Status.

(Doc. 56.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SCI may file responsive briefs within the scope of

the pending legal claims according to future briefing schedules.

DATED this 12th day of April, 2010.

Case 3:09-cv-08011-PGR Document 73 Filed 04/12/10 Page 5 of 5