First, the parties are adequately represented by competent counsel who are capable of making arguments without the assistance of an amicus. See Medina v. Catholic Health Initiatives, No. 1:13-CV-01249-REB-KLM, 2015 WL 13683647, at *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 7, 2015) (denying a motion for leave to file an amicus brief in part because “defendants are more than adequately represented by competent counsel who have addressed at substantial length the factual and legal issues sought to be presented by the putative amicae”). Further, the Chamber has not shown that it has “unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that lawyers for the parties are able to provide.”
District courts therefore have "broad discretion in allowing participation of amicus curiae. " Medina v. Catholic Health Initiatives , 2015 WL 13683647, at *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 7, 2015). In considering whether to grant leave to file an amicus brief, the Court finds useful five factors adopted by Senior U.S. District Judge Robert E. Blackburn:
Of the factors which courts have found instructive in guiding their broad discretion to grant or deny such a motion, none weigh in favor of granting the motion here. See Medina v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 2015 WL 13683647 at *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 7, 2015). In particular, despite their protestations to the contrary, the proposed amici are not disinterested parties.