Children's Health Defense v. Facebook Inc.

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE, Case No. 20-cv-05787-SI 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE 9 v. AMICUS BRIEF 10 FACEBOOK INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 89 11 Defendants.

13 The Rutherford Institute has filed a motion requesting leave to file an amicus brief. “The || district court has broad discretion to permit amicus briefs.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 15 || (9th Cir. 1982). “There are no strict prerequisites that must be established prior to qualifying for a 16 || amicus status; an individual seeking to appear as amicus must merely make a showing that his 17 || participation is useful or otherwise desirable to the court.” California by & through Becerra v. 18 United States Dep’t of the Interior, 381 F. Supp. 3d 1153, 1164 (N.D. Cal. 2019).

19 The Court exercises its discretion and DENIES the motion to file an amicus brief. The Court || has reviewed the proposed amicus brief and finds that it addresses the same issues that have already || been amply covered in the parties’ voluminous briefing, and thus that the amicus brief is not useful || to the Court.

24 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Gn. lite 26 Dated: May 7, 2021 SUSAN ILLSTON 27 United States District Judge