Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-01580/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-01580-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 16:1538 Endangered Species Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, a

non-profit corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, Administrator,

Environmental Protection Agency, and

WAYNE NASTRI, Region 9 Administrator,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-02-1580 JSW

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

STRIKE AMICI BRIEF FILED BY

OREGONIANS FOR FOOD AND

SHELTER, AMERICAN FOREST

AND PAPER ASSOCIATION,

CROPLIFE AMERICA, AND

CALIFORNIA PLANT HEALTH

ASSOCIATION AND GRANTING

SYGENTA CROP PROTECTION,

INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

APPEAR AS AMICUS CURIAE

 Now before the Court is the motion of Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity to strike

the amici brief filed by Oregonians for Food and Shelter, American Forest and Paper

Association, Croplife American, and California Plant Health Association (“Trade

Associations”) and the motion of Sygenta Crop Protection, Inc. (“Sygenta”) for leave to appear

as amicus curiae. The Court finds the present motions appropriate for decision without oral

argument and hereby VACATES the hearing set for May 27, 2005. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 

Having carefully reviewed the parties’ papers and considered their arguments and the relevant

legal authority, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to strike

the Trade Associations’ brief and GRANTS Syngenta’s motion for leave to appear as amicus

curiae. 

Case 3:02-cv-01580-JSW Document 189 Filed 05/19/05 Page 1 of 2
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 Trade Associations were granted leave to appear as amici curiae and were ordered

“to consult with defendant beforehand and address only what is different and what defendant

has not addressed in its brief.” (Minute Order dated August 6, 2002.) Amicus curiae may bring

additional facts, evidence and legal arguments to the court’s attention. See, e.g., In re Roxford

Foods Litigation, 790 F. Supp. 987, 997 (E.D. Cal. 1991) (granting leave for party to appear as

amicus and citing with approval United States v. Louisiana, 751 F. Supp. 608, 620 (E.D. La.

1990). “The privilege of being heard amicus rests solely within the discretion of the court . . .

Generally, courts have exercised great liberality in permitting an amicus curiae to file a brief in

a pending case, and, with further permission of the court, to argue the case and introduce

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

amicus status; an individual seeking to appear as amicus must merely make a showing that his

participation is useful to or otherwise desirable to the court.” United States v. Louisiana, 751 F.

Supp. at 620. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to strike the Trade Associations’ amici brief is

DENIED.

In addition, amicus participation is permitted where intervention was not. Portland

Audobon Society v. Hodel, 866 F.2d 302, 309 (9th Cir. 1989). For the same reasons, and in its

discretion, the Court finds Sygenta may also participate as amicus curiae in this proceeding.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey S. White 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-01580-JSW Document 189 Filed 05/19/05 Page 2 of 2