Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04332/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04332-6/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLINTON REILLY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MEDIANEWS GROUP, INC, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-04332 SI

ORDER GRANTING THE MCCLATCHY

COMPANY’S MOTION TO INTERVENE

Now before the Court is The McClatchy Company’s (“McClatchy”) unopposed motion to

intervene as a defendant in this matter. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter

suitable for disposition without oral argument. Having considered the papers submitted, and for good

cause appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS McClatchy’s motion.

BACKGROUND

On July 14, 2006, plaintiff Clinton Reilly filed this action, seeking to block a series of imminent

business transactions on the ground that they would violate the antitrust laws of the United States. At

the heart of Reilly’s complaint are four newspapers currently owned by proposed intervenor McClatchy:

The Contra Costa Times, The San Jose Mercury News, The Monterey County Herald, and The St. Paul

Pioneer Press. McClatchy intends to sell these newspapers to defendants The Hearst Corporation

(“Hearst”) and MediaNews Group, Inc. (“MediaNews”). Reilly claims that the sale of the newspapers,

along with a series of subsequent transactions between the purchasers, will result in a newspaper

monopoly in the greater San Francisco Bay Area. Reilly currently has an application for a temporary

restraining order pending before this Court, which will be heard July 27, 2006.

Case 3:06-cv-04332-SI Document 38 Filed 07/26/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

McClatchy, which is not named as a defendant in Reilly’s action, now moves to intervene as a

defendant for the limited purpose of defending the transactions to which it is a party. None of the parties

to this lawsuit has objected to McClatchy’s motion. Because the Court finds that McClatchy meets the

standard for intervention-of-right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), it GRANTS

McClatchy’s motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), an applicant for intervention of right must

demonstrate that “(1) it has a significant protectable interest relating to the property or transaction that

is the subject of the action; (2) the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede

the applicant’s ability to protect its interests; (3) the application is timely; and (4) the existing parties

may not adequately represent the applicant’s interest.” United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d

915, 919 (9th Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 24(a) is generally construed liberally

in favor of potential intervenors. Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 818 (9th

Cir. 2001). Indeed, “the ‘interest’ test is primarily a practical guide to disposing of lawsuits by involving

as many apparently concerned persons as is compatible with efficiency and due process.” Forest

Conservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 66 F.3d 1489, 1496 (9th Cir. 1995).

DISCUSSION

McClatchy’s unopposed motion adequately establishes that it satisfies the four requirements for

intervention of right. First, as the seller of the four newspapers at issue, and as a party to the transaction

that Reilly seeks to enjoin, there can be no doubt that McClatchy has a “significant protectable interest

in the property or transaction that is the subject of the action.” See Southwest Ctr., 268 F.3d at 820

(“Contract rights are traditionally protectable interests.”). Further, Reilly’s action will undoubtedly

impair McClatchy’s contractual rights if it is successful in enjoining the transactions at issue. As to the

third factor, McClatchy’s motion was unquestionably timely; McClatchy filed its motion a mere ten days

after Reilly filed his complaint. 

The fourth factor, lack of adequate representation, requires only a “minimal” showing. See

Case 3:06-cv-04332-SI Document 38 Filed 07/26/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

Southwest Ctr., 268 F.3d at 823 (“[T]he burden of showing inadequacy is ‘minimal,’ and the applicant

need only show that representation of its interests by existing parties ‘may be’ inadequate.”). Here,

while defendants have an interest in defending the sales transactions, their interest does not extend to

protecting McClatchy’s contractual rights. Further, McClatchy’s interest in this lawsuit is narrower than

the interests of the other defendants; Reilly not only seeks to enjoin the newspaper sales, but also seeks

to prevent Hearst from later investing in MediaNews. Thus, because defendants’ interests are not

identical to McClatchy’s, theCourtfinds that McClatchy has satisfied the final intervention requirement.

Cf. Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003) (“When an applicant for intervention and

an existing party have the same ultimate objective, a presumption of adequacy arises.”). 

McClatchy meets all four requirements for intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

24(a)(2). Accordingly, its motion to intervene is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS McClatchy’s

motion to intervene (Docket No. 9).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2006 

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04332-SI Document 38 Filed 07/26/06 Page 3 of 3