Laserfiche WebLink
The Response cites several inapposite cases in suggesting that Amici should be permitted <br />to file a brief here. These cases are readily distinguishable because none involved appeals of <br />agency adjudications to a district court. In light of the scope of this appeal, which is limited to <br />review of the record already created before the agency (where Amici were not parties), Cotter is <br />at a loss for what the Board and the Division believe can be added through participation by <br />Amici. Moreover, motions to file amicus briefs were not even at issue in US West <br />Communications, Inc. v. Hix, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (D. Colo. 2000), and Parker v. Baltimore <br />Paint & Chemical Corp., 39 F.R.D. 567, 568 (D. Colo. 1966). <br />The Response suggests that the Court should be guided by Colorado Appellate Rule 29, <br />which governs amicus filings with the Colorado Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. Under <br />C.A.R. 29, the Amici were required to file their brief within the time allotted for the Board and <br />the Division to file their answer brief. Because Cotter filed its opening brief on February 9, <br />2011, the deadline to file an amicus brief was March 14, 2011. C.R.S. § 24 -4- 106(4) (stating <br />that briefing deadlines are controlled by Colorado Appellate Rules); C.A.R. 31(a) (setting answer <br />brief deadline as thirty days from filing of opening brief). Amici did not seek an extension of <br />this deadline and waited over a month until April 19, 2011 to seek leave to file their amicus <br />brief 2 Thus, their request is untimely and should be denied. <br />permitted in `a case in which a party is inadequately represented; or in which the would -be <br />amicus has a direct interest in another case that may be materially affected by a decision in this <br />case; or in which the amicus has a unique perspective or specific information that can assist the <br />court beyond what the parties can provide. "' Here, none of these factors is present, especially <br />since this Court's review is limited to the administrative record designated by the Board. Thus, <br />the Amici's Motion should be denied. <br />2 The Board and the Division obtained extensions of time until April 18, 2011 to file their <br />answer brief. <br />