The Louis D. Brandeis Center, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California

Background

The proposed intervenors asked to join the lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. They sought intervention as of right, which can require a court to allow a person or organization with a legally protected interest that may be affected by the case to participate. They also sought permissive intervention, which allows a court to permit participation when the proposed intervenor's interests or defenses are sufficiently related to the case.

The opinion says most proposed intervenors had no current affiliation with the University of California, Berkeley. The court found that general references to free speech on college campuses and opposition to fascism were not enough to establish the significant protectable interest required for intervention as of right. Because most proposed intervenors also lacked meaningful ties to UC Berkeley or the challenged actions, the court concluded that their participation could introduce unrelated issues, prolong the litigation, and prejudice the original parties.

Rulings on Intervention

The court denied the proposed intervenors' request to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2).

The court granted permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) for Malak Afaneh, Zaid Yousef, Muki Barkan, Berkeley Law Student #1, Isaac Tragarz, and UCB Graduate Student #1. The proposed answer indicated that these individuals were current UC Berkeley students who either belonged to student organizations that authored or adopted the challenged bylaw or participated in the on-campus encampment relevant to some of the plaintiffs' claims. The opinion says they represented that they were likely to engage in similar protests, and that the plaintiffs did not dispute those statements. The court found that the students plausibly had interests that could be affected by the case and might have defenses that UC Berkeley would not raise.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the students' request was too late. The court noted that the case was still at an early stage, the request came three months after the amended complaint and less than two months after the defendants' motion to dismiss, and the record did not support the plaintiffs' claims of urgency. The court concluded that potential delay and prejudice could be managed through conditions.

The court denied permissive intervention for the Berkeley Muslim Student Association because the parties did not allege that it had adopted the challenged bylaw or hosted or endorsed the relevant protests. The court also denied permissive intervention for Berkeley Law Jewish Students for Justice in Palestine because one student's assertion that the student was a member and representative of that organization was insufficient to establish the organization's eligibility to intervene.

Conditions on the Student Intervenors

The six student intervenors may file a motion or response to a motion seven court days after a party files. They may raise only new or different relevant arguments and may not repeat, restate, or amplify arguments made by a party. Because their proposed answer raises affirmative defenses but no new claims, they may address only arguments relating to the plaintiffs' claims. References to harassment or discrimination may be raised in a separate lawsuit, not in this case.

The student intervenors' motion filings are limited to ten pages unless the court grants permission for additional pages after a timely request and a showing of good cause. They may not serve discovery requests without the court's prior approval. If a student intervenor stops being a UC Berkeley student during the case, that person must promptly notify the court by declaration. All intervenors must use their true legal names unless the court grants permission to proceed anonymously; an individual seeking anonymity had to file that request by November 12, 2024, or face dismissal from the case as a pseudonymous intervenor.

The court directed the parties and student intervenors to meet and confer about a proposed scheduling order addressing the timing of the intervenors' filings and the number of additional pages plaintiffs would receive to respond. The proposed scheduling order was due November 18, 2024. The court also advised that it disfavored competing summary-judgment motions and directed the scheduling order to contemplate one summary-judgment motion by the plaintiffs, who bear the burden identified by the order.