Children's Health Defense v. Facebook Inc.
- Susan Illston
- 3:20-cv-05787
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Children’s Health Defense v. Facebook, Judge Illston denied the Rutherford Institute’s request to file an amicus brief because it was not useful.
The Rutherford Institute’s request to file an amicus brief was denied; the order concerns the briefing in the case brought by Children’s Health Defense against Facebook Inc. and other defendants.
What happened
Children’s Health Defense v. Facebook Inc. involved the Rutherford Institute’s request for permission to file an amicus brief, meaning a brief from someone who is not a party to the case.
The court denied the request because the proposed brief addressed issues already fully covered in the parties’ extensive filings and therefore would not help the court.
Judge Illston issued the order on May 7, 2021, exercising the court’s discretion to deny permission to file the brief.
The detailed version
- Children's Health Defense v. Facebook Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-05787
- Susan Illston
- May 7, 2021
Background
The Rutherford Institute asked for permission to file an amicus brief. An amicus brief is a filing by a person or organization that is not a party but seeks to provide information or arguments that may assist the court.
Ruling
The court stated that district courts have broad discretion to allow amicus briefs and that the person seeking amicus status must show that participation would be useful or desirable to the court. The court reviewed the proposed brief and found that it addressed the same issues already fully covered in the parties’ extensive briefing. The court therefore found that the proposed brief was not useful to the court and denied the motion to file it.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.