San Francisco Baykeeper v. Sunnyvale
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-00824
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In San Francisco Baykeeper v. Sunnyvale, Judge Davila grants California agencies permission to file an amicus brief and expands the Cities’ reply limit.
The ruling directly affects the two California water agencies seeking to participate as amici, the Cities of Sunnyvale and Mountain View, and San Francisco Baykeeper. The agencies may file their brief; the Cities may respond in their reconsideration reply, subject to an 18-page limit.
What happened
San Francisco Baykeeper v. City of Sunnyvale, et al. concerns allegations that Sunnyvale and Mountain View violated wastewater-discharge permit terms.
Two California water agencies asked to file an amicus brief supporting the Cities’ motion for reconsideration, which relies on a recent Supreme Court decision. The Cities opposed the request, arguing that the brief was duplicative, prejudicial, untimely, and unauthorized.
Judge Edward J. Davila granted permission to file the brief and treated it as filed. He did not permit a separate response brief from the Cities, but allowed them to address the agencies’ arguments in their reply and increased the reply limit from 15 to 18 pages.
The detailed version
- San Francisco Baykeeper v. Sunnyvale · No. 5:20-cv-00824
- Edward Davila
- May 2, 2025
Background
San Francisco Baykeeper alleges that the Cities of Sunnyvale and Mountain View violated terms in permits regulating their wastewater discharges. The Cities filed a motion asking the court to reconsider earlier rulings based on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in City and County of San Francisco v. EPA. The Cities argued that the Supreme Court’s decision showed that some permit terms at issue were invalid.
Two California water agencies, identified in the opinion as the Proposed Amici, asked for permission to file a brief presenting their views on the reconsideration motion. The Cities opposed that request.
Court’s Analysis
Judge Edward J. Davila explained that district courts allow amicus briefs—briefs filed by nonparties offering information or arguments—to help address legal issues with effects beyond the parties or to provide a unique perspective. He found both circumstances present here because water-quality enforcement questions could affect matters beyond this case and the Proposed Amici had a unique perspective based on their role in overseeing water regulation in California.
The court rejected the Cities’ objections. Although the proposed brief overlapped somewhat with Baykeeper’s arguments, the court found that it added regulatory detail and perspective. The court also found that allowing the brief would not cause meaningful prejudice because the Cities could address the arguments in their regular reply. The court concluded that the brief was timely because it was filed seven days after Baykeeper’s opposition, matching the timing used for amicus briefs in the federal appellate and Supreme Courts. The court also found insufficient evidence for the Cities’ claim that the brief was unauthorized because public meeting agendas did not mention this case. Finally, the court found no problem with the Proposed Amici advancing similar interests in other proceedings.
Ruling
The court granted leave to file the amicus brief and deemed the proposed brief at ECF No. 281-1 filed. It did not permit the Cities to file a separate brief responding to the amicus brief. The Cities may instead respond in their reply supporting reconsideration, and the court expanded the reply’s page limit from 15 pages to 18 pages.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.