Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486-109/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS

MEMORY (DRAM) ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION No. M 02-1486 PJH

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING 

This Document Relates to: REQUEST FOR LEAVE

TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF

All Indirect Purchaser Actions

_______________________________/

Before the court is the State of California’s request for leave to appear as amicus

curiae in support of the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second

amended complaint. The State of California asserts that its presence in connection with

plaintiffs’ motion is necessary because (1) the court has need of the State’s “input” on “the

very serious issues addressed” in the indirect purchaser action; and (2) as the “guardian” of

the California Cartwright Act, the California Attorney General is “concerned” that the court’s

June 1, 2007 order granting judgment on the pleadings with respect to certain claims

“materially weaken[s] California antitrust enforcement,” in a way that only the State Attorney

General can adequately address.

There are no strict prerequisites that must be established prior to qualifying for

amicus status; an individual or entity seeking to appear as amicus must merely make a

showing that his/its participation is useful to or otherwise desirable to the court. See In re

Roxford Foods Litig., 790 F. Supp. 987, 997 (E.D. Cal.1991)(“The privilege of being heard

amicus rests solely within the discretion of the court...”). An amicus curiae is merely a

“friend of the court,” not a party to the action, and to that end, an amicus may not assume

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1617 Filed 07/09/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

the functions of a party, nor may it initiate, create, extend, or enlarge the issues. See

Miller-Wohl Co., v. Comm'r. of Labor and Indus. of Mont., 694 F.2d 203, 204 (9th Cir.1982);

United States v. Alkaabi, 223 F. Supp. 2d 583, 593 n. 19 (D. N.J. 2002).

Here, review of the California Attorney General’s proposed amicus brief makes

evident that, rather than offering useful or advisory arguments, the State is really seeking to

relitigate the issues raised by the actual parties to the instant action in connection with

defendants’ earlier motions for judgment on the pleadings. Indeed, nearly the whole of the

State’s proposed brief is aimed at pointing out the various “errors” that the State believes

the court committed in issuing its June 1, 2007 order, and the reasons why those errors

justify the filing of a second amended complaint. Even more striking, is the State’s

sweeping conclusion that the court should simply “vacat[e] sua sponte the 6/1/07 Order and

enter[] a different order denying defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.” See

Amicus Br. at 25:2-4. 

These arguments are not consistent with the role of an amicus. In making them, the

State of California, who is not a party to the instant action, seeks to do what plaintiffs, and

plaintiffs alone, had the ability to do – i.e., have the court reconsider its June 1, 2007 order. 

Since, as noted above, the State is prohibited from assuming the functions of a party to the

action, the court must accordingly deny the State’s request. 

Moreover, the court notes – as the State of California itself acknowledges – that the

State is already a party to a related action before the court, in which similar issues of

California and other states’ laws are addressed. That action is proceeding before the court,

with the active involvement of the California Attorney General. Accordingly, the court is not

deprived wholesale of the benefit of the State’s views as to California law, nor is the State

deprived of the opportunity to make its views known, even if that opportunity arises in the

context of a related action. 

For the foregoing reasons, the State’s request is therefore DENIED. The State’s 

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1617 Filed 07/09/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

corresponding request for judicial notice is also DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2007

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1617 Filed 07/09/07 Page 3 of 3