2011-05-17_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300

Home Browse Search

the Water Providers' Motion, although no Colorado rule of civil procedure directly allows or prohibits the filing of an amicus curiae brief, district courts have the inherent authority to accept such briefs. Several Colorado state district courts have allowed and considered amicus curiae briefs. See orders attached to Joint Response as Exhibit 1. In addition, under federal case law, district courts have broad discretion to accept an amicus curiae brief. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated in part on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995); Citizens against Casino Gambling in Erie County v. Kempthorne, 471 F.Supp.2d 295, 311 (W.D.N.Y. 2007) (citing United States v. Ahmed, 788 F.Supp. 196, 198 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), aff'd, 980 F.2d 161 (2d Cir. 1992)). See also Leaffer v. Zarlengo, 44 P.3d 1072 (Colo. 2002) (federal cases may provide helpful guidance in interpreting virtually identical state civil rules); Edge Telecom, Inc. v. Sterling Bank, 143 P.3d 1155 (Colo. App. 2006) (court consults federal law in the absence of a state procedural rule directly on point); People v. Kriho, 996 P.2d 158, 175 (Colo. App. 1999) (court turns to federal law for guidance). 6. The present case concerns important public health and environmental issues that involve contamination of a public drinking water source. As water providers using the affected drinking water source, the City and County of Denver and North Table Mountain Water and Sanitation District have a unique perspective and helpful information, and they are directly affected by the matters involved in this case. Accordingly, they should be allowed to file an amicus curiae brief stating their concerns and perspective. See C.A.R. 29 (amicus curiae brief may be conditionally filed with the motion for leave, and that the motion for leave shall identify the interest of the applicant and shall state the reasons why a brief of an amicus curiae is desirable). 7. Contrary to Plaintiffs argument, the Water Providers' Motion and brief were timely filed. The Board and Division were granted an extension of time in which to file their Joint Answer Brief to and including April 18, 2011 and the motion and amicus curiae brief (which support the Joint Answer Brief) were filed one day later on April 19. 8. As to Plaintiffs requests for an additional 30 days to respond to the amicus curiae brief should this Court accept the brief, such request should be denied. As stated in the Joint Response, Plaintiff can respond to the amicus curiae brief in the ample time Plaintiff has to reply to the Joint Answer Brief of the Board and Division. This Court granted Plaintiffs request for a three -week 3