UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, et al.

v. Case No. 24-cv-73-SM-TSM Opinion No.

Steve Kramer, et al.

O R D E R

This case arises from robocalls made to New Hampshire

voters before the primary election in January of 2024. The

League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, the League of Women

Voters of the United States, and three New Hampshire voters

allege that, by creating and sending those calls, Steve Kramer,

Lingo Telecom, LLC, Life Corporation, and Voice Broadcasting

Corporation violated the Voting Rights Act, the Telephone

Consumer Protection Act, and New Hampshire Elections Laws, NH

RSA 664:14-a and 644:14-b. 1 The Coolidge-Reagan Foundation

(“Foundation”) moves for leave to file a memorandum as amicus

curiae in support of the defendants’ pending motions to dismiss

the plaintiffs’ claims and a memorandum in response to the

plaintiffs’ objection to the report and recommendation denying a

preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs object to allowing the

Foundation to participate in the case as amicus curiae. The

1 Default has been entered against defendant Steve Kramer. Doc. no. 92. active defendants did not respond to the Foundation’s motion.

Discussion

The Foundation states that it is a nonprofit organization

incorporated in the District of Columbia and that it “is

dedicated to protecting freedom of speech under the First

Amendment and the integrity of the electoral process.” Doc. no.

97, at 1. The Foundation further states that the issues in this

case “touch upon [its] interests.”

The plaintiffs oppose

the Foundation’s amicus memorandum on grounds that the

Foundation’s request is untimely, its memorandum is repetitious

of the issues addressed by the defendants, no supplemental

assistance is needed, and its participation would prejudice the

plaintiffs.

An amicus curiae participates in a case to “‘assist the

court on matters of law’ through briefing and, sometimes, oral

argument. DeOliveira v. Garland,

, 29 n.18 (1st

Cir. 2024) (quoting Banerjee v. Bd. of Trs.,

, 65 n.9

(1st Cir. 1981)). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not

address amicus participation. 2 League of Women Voters of Ohio v.

LaRose, --- F. Supp. 3d ---,

, at *21 (N.D. Ohio

2 Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure governs amici curiae in the federal circuit courts of appeals. See United States v. Keleher,

, 82 (D.P.R. 2020).

2 July 22, 2024). Instead, courts have discretion to grant amicus

curiae status in the exercise of the courts’ inherent authority.

Washington All. Of Tech. Workers v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,

(D.C. Cir. 2022); Strasser v. Koorley,

, 569 (1st Cir. 1970); Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. City

of South Portland,

, at *4 (D. Me. Jan. 9, 2017).

Importantly, “[a]n amicus curiae is merely a ‘friend of the

court,’ not a party to the action, and to that end, an amicus

may not assume the functions of a party, nor may it initiate,

create, extend, or enlarge the issues.” Famulus Health, LLC v.

GoodRX, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-00886-BHH,

, at *5

(D.S.C. Sept. 11, 2024) (additional internal quotation marks

omitted); see also L.M. v. town of Middleborough, Mass.,

(1st Cir. 2024) (noting that it did not consider

an issue raised by an amicus that was not addressed by the

parties).

Without specifically determining what assistance, if any,

the Foundation’s memorandum may provide in deciding the pending

motions to dismiss and the pending report and recommendation,

the court exercises its discretion to allow the Foundation to

file those memoranda as an amicus curiae. The court will

consider the memoranda only to the extent they may provide legal

assistance in deciding the issues raised by the parties in the

motions and the objection. To avoid any prejudice to the

3 plaintiffs, they are granted leave to file a response to the

Foundation’s memoranda as provided below.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Foundation’s motion (doc.

no. 97) to file the proposed memorandum (doc. no. 97-1) and the

motion for leave to file a response (doc. no. 108) as an amicus

curiae are granted.

The Foundation shall refile the memoranda (doc. no. 97-1

and doc. no. 108-1) as separate documents within three (3) days

of the date of this order. The plaintiffs may file a response

to the memoranda, not to exceed fifteen (15) pages, within

fourteen (14) days after the memoranda are docketed.

SO ORDERED.

______________________________ Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

October 29, 2024

cc: Counsel of Record

4