It looks like we may not see the kind of lengthy and detailed briefing from the amicus curae in Parker v DC that we saw in Seegars.
appearing that this case presents potential problems of duplicative
briefing, it is ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that amici curiae
show cause, within 30 days of the date of this order, why they should
not be limited to one joint brief, not to
exceed 7,000 words, on the side of the party they support. See D.C. Cir. Rules 29(d), 32(a)(4).
The amici may suggest an alternative briefing format to reduce the
number of pages submitted to the court. In so doing, amici should keep
in mind that the court looks with extreme disfavor on repetitious
submissions and will, where appropriate, require a joint brief of
aligned entities with total words not to exceed the standard allotment
for a single brief. The amici are directed to provide detailed
justifications for any request to file separate briefs or to exceed in
the aggregate the standard word allotment. Requests to exceed the
standard word allotment must specify the word allotment necessary for
is not a final decision, the various parties intending to file amicus
briefs are being asked to limit both the length of their argument and
to combine their responses. That should make the arguments more
managable; remember that Seegars saw multiple filings exceeding 50
pages from people not even parties to the case.
While it's somewhat disappointing -- I like reading legal briefs on
this issue, and there will be less red meat for me to report on -- it's
should help distill the arguments into their shortest and clearest
form. And that should help the case move more quickly.
This entry was published Sat Nov 12 09:59:03 CST 2005 by TriggerFinger
and last updated 2005-11-12 09:59:03.0.