UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


R.D. Offutt Farms Co.,                File No. 24-CV-01600 (JMB/LIB)      

     Plaintiff,                                                      

v.                                             ORDER                      

White Earth Division of Natural Resources;                                
Dustin  Roy,  in  his  official  capacity;  John                          
Does, in their official capacities,                                       

     Defendants.                                                     


This matter is before the Court on The Irrigators Association of Minnesota, et al.’s 
Motion  for  Leave  to  Participate  as  Amici  Curiae  (Doc.  No.  29),  and  United  States 
Representatives Pete Stauber’s, Michelle Fischbach’s, and Brad Finstad’s Motion for 
Leave to File a Brief of Amicus Curiae.  (Doc. No. 31).  Both motions are filed by third 
parties seeking leave to appear as amicus curiae in connection with Defendants White Earth 
Division of Natural Resources’, Dustin Roy’s, and John Does’ pending Motion to Dismiss.  
(Doc. No. 16.)                                                            
The appearance of amicus curiae on a motion to dismiss is not typical, and neither 
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules contemplate filing of amicus 
briefs before the District Court.  The movants direct the Court to no applicable authority to 
justify the requested appearances.  Although courts are careful not to permit interested 
persons  and  parties  from  undermining  the  rules  governing  intervening,  joinder,  and 
standing, district courts may grant leave to file amicus briefs if the briefs would provide 
useful,  timely,  or  otherwise  unexamined  but  relevant  information  regarding  an  issue 
properly before the court.  See Larson v. Allina Health Sys., No. 17-CV-3835 (SRN/TNL), 

, at *2 (D. Minn. Feb. 6, 2020) (“There is no formal rule governing the 
standard by which to evaluate whether to grant a motion requesting leave to file an amicus 
curiae brief.  Rather, [the determination] is discretionary, and the court may grant or refuse 
leave  according  as  it  deems  the  proffered  information  timely,  useful,  or  otherwise.” 
(quotation omitted)).  By the same logic, courts properly deny requests to permit filing of 
amicus briefs where the briefs in question “merely extend[] the length of the litigant’s 

brief,” or otherwise fail to provide useful assistance to the Court.  See Ryan v. Commodity 
Futures Trading Comm’n, 

 (7th Cir. 1997);  see also Consumer Fin. 
Prot. Bureau v. TCF Nat’l Bank, No. 17-CV-166 (RHK/DTS), 

, at *1 
(D. Minn. Apr. 26, 2017) (denying motion to appear as amici where proposed brief “largely 
rehashes and expands upon arguments” already presented by a party); Bishop v. Jesson, 

No. 14-CV-1898 (ADM/SER), 

, at *19 (D. Minn. Feb. 12, 2016), report 
and recommendation adopted, 

 (D. Minn. Mar. 9, 2016) (denying motion 
for leave to file amicus brief where proposed brief presented arguments “either repetitive 
of information and argument [already] brought to the Court’s attention . . . , irrelevant in 
light of the current posture . . . , and/or simply unhelpful”).           

Here, the Court has reviewed the contents of the proposed amicus memoranda and 
concludes that the proposed briefs present information and arguments derivative of those 
already advanced by the Plaintiff and that otherwise emphasize matters of public policy 
that are not properly the province of this Court.                         
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:                                                

1.   The  Irrigators  Association  of  Minnesota,  et  al.’s  Motion  for  Leave  to 
     Participate as Amici Curiae (Doc. No. 29) is DENIED; and        

2.   United States Representatives Pete Stauber’s, Michelle Fischbach’s, and 
     Brad Finstad’s Motion for Leave to File a Brief of Amicus Curiae (Doc. No. 
     31) is DENIED.                                                  

Dated:  November 22, 2024               /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan              
                                   Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan            
                                   United States District Court      

            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


R.D. Offutt Farms Co.,                File No. 24-CV-01600 (JMB/LIB)      

     Plaintiff,                                                      

v.                                             ORDER                      

White Earth Division of Natural Resources;                                
Dustin  Roy,  in  his  official  capacity;  John                          
Does, in their official capacities,                                       

     Defendants.                                                     


This matter is before the Court on The Irrigators Association of Minnesota, et al.’s 
Motion  for  Leave  to  Participate  as  Amici  Curiae  (Doc.  No.  29),  and  United  States 
Representatives Pete Stauber’s, Michelle Fischbach’s, and Brad Finstad’s Motion for 
Leave to File a Brief of Amicus Curiae.  (Doc. No. 31).  Both motions are filed by third 
parties seeking leave to appear as amicus curiae in connection with Defendants White Earth 
Division of Natural Resources’, Dustin Roy’s, and John Does’ pending Motion to Dismiss.  
(Doc. No. 16.)                                                            
The appearance of amicus curiae on a motion to dismiss is not typical, and neither 
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules contemplate filing of amicus 
briefs before the District Court.  The movants direct the Court to no applicable authority to 
justify the requested appearances.  Although courts are careful not to permit interested 
persons  and  parties  from  undermining  the  rules  governing  intervening,  joinder,  and 
standing, district courts may grant leave to file amicus briefs if the briefs would provide 
useful,  timely,  or  otherwise  unexamined  but  relevant  information  regarding  an  issue 
properly before the court.  See Larson v. Allina Health Sys., No. 17-CV-3835 (SRN/TNL), 

, at *2 (D. Minn. Feb. 6, 2020) (“There is no formal rule governing the 
standard by which to evaluate whether to grant a motion requesting leave to file an amicus 
curiae brief.  Rather, [the determination] is discretionary, and the court may grant or refuse 
leave  according  as  it  deems  the  proffered  information  timely,  useful,  or  otherwise.” 
(quotation omitted)).  By the same logic, courts properly deny requests to permit filing of 
amicus briefs where the briefs in question “merely extend[] the length of the litigant’s 

brief,” or otherwise fail to provide useful assistance to the Court.  See Ryan v. Commodity 
Futures Trading Comm’n, 

 (7th Cir. 1997);  see also Consumer Fin. 
Prot. Bureau v. TCF Nat’l Bank, No. 17-CV-166 (RHK/DTS), 

, at *1 
(D. Minn. Apr. 26, 2017) (denying motion to appear as amici where proposed brief “largely 
rehashes and expands upon arguments” already presented by a party); Bishop v. Jesson, 

No. 14-CV-1898 (ADM/SER), 

, at *19 (D. Minn. Feb. 12, 2016), report 
and recommendation adopted, 

 (D. Minn. Mar. 9, 2016) (denying motion 
for leave to file amicus brief where proposed brief presented arguments “either repetitive 
of information and argument [already] brought to the Court’s attention . . . , irrelevant in 
light of the current posture . . . , and/or simply unhelpful”).           

Here, the Court has reviewed the contents of the proposed amicus memoranda and 
concludes that the proposed briefs present information and arguments derivative of those 
already advanced by the Plaintiff and that otherwise emphasize matters of public policy 
that are not properly the province of this Court.                         
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:                                                

1.   The  Irrigators  Association  of  Minnesota,  et  al.’s  Motion  for  Leave  to 
     Participate as Amici Curiae (Doc. No. 29) is DENIED; and        

2.   United States Representatives Pete Stauber’s, Michelle Fischbach’s, and 
     Brad Finstad’s Motion for Leave to File a Brief of Amicus Curiae (Doc. No. 
     31) is DENIED.                                                  

Dated:  November 22, 2024               /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan              
                                   Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan            
                                   United States District Court