United States v. City of Seattle

[7] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON [8] AT SEATTLE [9] 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. C12-1282JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS v. TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEFS [12] CITY OF SEATTLE, [13] Defendant. [14] 15 Before the court are three motions for leave to file amici curiae briefs regarding 16 Plaintiff the United States of America (“the Government”) and Defendant the City of 17 Seattle’s (“the City”) joint stipulated motion to approve their proposed Agreement on 18 Sustained Compliance. (CPC Mot. (Dkt. # 738); ACLU Mot. (Dkt. # 744); Sims Mot. 19 (Dkt. # 739); see Compliance Agreement Mot. (Dkt. # 727).) The motions for leave to 20 file amici curiae briefs were filed by (1) the Community Police Commission (“CPC”); 21 (2) the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”); and (3) Anthony Sims (collectively, 22 “Movants”). (CPC Mot.; ACLU Mot.; Sims Mot.) The City represents that it takes no 1 position on whether the court should grant the motions to file amici curiae briefs, but it 2 requests an opportunity to respond to Movants’ briefs if the court does grant the motions. 3 (City Resp. (Dkt. # 751).) Although Government has not yet responded to the motions 4 (see generally Dkt.), the court exercises its discretion to decide the motions at this time. 5 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (instructing the court “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive 6 determination of every action and proceeding”). Having reviewed Movants’ motions, the 7 relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law, the court GRANTS Movants’ 8 motions to file amici curiae briefs. 9 District courts may consider amicus briefs from non-parties “concerning legal 10 issues that have potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved or if the 11 amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that 12 the lawyers for the parties are able to provide.” Macareno v. Thomas, 378 F. Supp. 3d 13 933, 940 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (quoting NGV Gaming, Ltd. v. Upstream Point Molate, 14 LLC, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 15 The court has “broad discretion” to appoint amici curiae. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 16 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 17 472 (1995). 18 The court finds that the CPC, the ACLU, and Mr. Sims each have unique 19 perspectives that may help the court decide the legal questions at issue in the parties’ 20 joint motion for approval of the proposed Agreement on Sustained Compliance. See 21 Macareno, 378 F. Supp. 3d at 940 . Accordingly, the court GRANTS Movants’ motions 22 (Dkt. ## 738, 739, 744) and DIRECTS the Clerk to accept for filing Movants’ proposed 1 amici curiae briefs (Dkt. ## 752-1 (CPC brief (corrected)), 744-1 (ACLU brief), 739-1 2 (Sims brief)). The City and the Government may file optional responses to Movants’ 3 amici curiae briefs by no later than 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 17, 2023. This order 4 does not entitle Movants to make a formal appearance at any hearing, participate in oral 5 argument at any hearing, or file any reply memoranda. See Fed. R. App. P. 29(f), (g). 6 Dated this 3rd day of May, 2023. [7] A [8] 9 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge