Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.: 20cv67-LAB-LL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 v. LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF 14 JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP [ECF No. 12] address 174.65.135.19, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Currently before the Court is a motion by the Electronic Frontier Foundation 18 (“EFF”) requesting leave to file an amicus brief in support of Defendant’s motion to quash 19 Plaintiff’s subpoena served on Cox Communication [ECF No. 9-1]. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff 20 has not filed an opposition. See Docket. EFF states that it is a “nonprofit public interest 21 organization dedicated to protecting civil liberties and free expression in the digital world.” 22 Id. at 2. EFF claims that it has taken an active role “in assisting the thousands of Internet 23 users who have received monetary demands from attorneys purporting to represent holders 24 of copyright in adult films” by helping Internet users obtain counsel, having its attorneys 25 serve as ad litem counsel, providing expert testimony, and filing amicus briefs. Id. EFF 26 claims that its experience and history of advocacy give it a unique perspective to contribute. 27 Id. at 3. 28 / / / 1 The classic role of amicus curiae is to “assist[] in a case of general public interest, 2 ||supplement[] the efforts of counsel, and draw[] the court’s attention to law that escaped 3 ||consideration.” Miller-Wohl Co. v. Comm'r of Labor & Indus. State of Mont., 4 || 694 F.2d 203, 204 (9th Cir. 1982). “The district court has broad discretion to appoint amici 5 ||curiae.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds 6 || by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “There are no strict prerequisites that must be 7 || established prior to qualifying for amicus status; an individual seeking to appear as amicus 8 merely make a showing that his participation is useful or otherwise desirable to the 9 ||court.” California by & through Becerra United States Dep't of the Interior, 10 F. Supp. 3d 1153, 1164 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (citation omitted). 11 The Court finds it appropriate to grant EFF’s unopposed motion. EFF’s proposed 12 || brief amplifies the points raised in Defendant’s motion to quash the Cox Communication 13 ||subpoena, which may be useful to the Court. See id. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 14 || EFF’s motion to file an amicus brief. The proposed amicus brief submitted simultaneously 15 || with the motion [ECF No. 12-1] shall be deemed filed. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ||Dated: June 12, 2020 XO 18 DEF 19 Honorable Linda Lopez United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28