Opinion
Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)
March 4, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case comes before the Court upon the filing of a motion by the Association for Competitive Technology (ACT) which seeks limited participation in the upcoming Tunney Act proceedings. ACT's motion is a "conditional motion to participate as a third party in the upcoming Tunney Act hearing, if the Court decides to allow any third parties to participate in that hearing." ACT brings its motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 and 15 U.S.C. § 16(f). Microsoft supports ACT's motion to participate, and the federal government has not indicated its position with regard to ACT's motion. Upon review of ACT's motion and Microsoft's statement in support of ACT's motion, the Court shall permit ACT to participate in a limited capacity as amicus curiae.
ACT describes itself as "a nonprofit association representing thousands of companies and individuals in the information technology industry." ACT Mot. at 1. ACT acknowledges that Microsoft is among its members. Id. On January 28, 2002, ACT submitted comments regarding the Revised Proposed Final Judgment (RPFJ) to the United States Department of Justice. ACT's comments have since been provided in full to the Court as part of a group of approximately 47 "major" comments. Notably, ACT's comments support entry of the proposed consent decree. See generally ACT Mot., Ex. 1. In accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 16(f)(4), the Court will review the comments submitted pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 16(b) and accord them appropriate weight in conjunction with the public interest determination.
The Court interprets ACT's "conditional motion" as a request for participation in a capacity equal to whatever participation is ultimately afforded to other non-parties. In other words, the Court views ACT's request to seek participation only to the extent that the Court permits other third parties to participate in the Tunney Act hearings. To date, the Court has ruled on a number of motions to participate and/or intervene for purposes of participating in the Tunney Act proceedings, and none of these proposed entities has satisfied the requirements for intervention as of right, pursuant to Rule 24(a), or permissive intervention, pursuant to Rule 24(b). As a result, no third-party has been permitted to intervene in these proceedings. In light of these circumstances, the Court does not interpret ACT's "conditional motion" to seek intervention. Therefore, the Court will focus solely upon ACT's request to participate as amicus curiae pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 16(f).
Even if the Court considered ACT's motion as a request to intervene, it is plainly apparent that ACT has satisfied neither the permissive nor the "as of right" standard for intervention. First and foremost, ACT's motion does not identify which type of intervention is sought, nor does it engage in any analysis of the factors set forth in Rule 24(a) and (b) to determine whether intervention should be permitted. As a result, the Court can readily conclude that ACT has failed to establish that it is entitled to any form of intervention in these proceedings. The Court notes in addition that, under the Tunney Act, there is no "absolute right" to intervene for purposes of objecting to or supporting entry of a proposed consent decree. See United States v. ATT, 552 F. Supp. 131, 218 n. 362 (D.D.C. 1982) (text and accompanying footnote), aff'd without opinion sub nom, Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983); see also United States v. Airline Tariff Publishing Co., 1993 U.S. Lexis 3553 at *4 (D.D.C. 1993).
This Court possesses broad discretion to define the nature of third-party participation in Tunney Act proceedings. In pertinent part, 15 U.S.C. § 16(f)(3) instructs that the Court, in making its determination of the public interest, may
authorize full or limited participation in proceedings before the court by interested persons or agencies, including appearance amicus curiae, intervention as a party pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, . . . or participation in any other manner or extent which serves the public interest as the court may deem appropriate.15 U.S.C. § 16(f)(3). Judge Harold Greene eloquently and accurately summarized the Court's discretion pursuant to Section 16(f):
In the congressional reports and hearings, it was repeatedly emphasized that the court conducting a Tunney Act proceeding would have the widest possible latitude in choosing the appropriate method for collecting the information necessary to make its decision and that the various means specified in the subsection were to be regarded as permissive.
United States v. ATT, 552 F. Supp. at 218.
ACT argues that its participation is appropriate based on the logic that "if the Court is going to hear from those who would impose more onerous restrictions on Microsoft than those in the proposed consent decree, the Court should also hear from third-parties who believe that they will be harmed by those additional restrictions." ACT Mot. at 4. ACT's reference to "more onerous restrictions" is directed at the proposed remedy in State of New York v. Microsoft Corp., No. 98-1233 (D.D.C.). Inasmuch as ACT's comments and proposed participation focus upon the remedy proffered by the so-called Litigating States in State of New York v. Microsoft, ACT's focus is misplaced. The remedy proposed by the Litigating States in State of New York v. Microsoft is not before the Court in this case. Accordingly, reference to that proposed remedy has no place in these proceedings. The only proposed remedy in this action is the consent decree proposed jointly by the United States and Microsoft, and thus, any entity seeking to participate in these proceedings should limit its argument to supporting or opposing that remedy. Notwithstanding ACT's somewhat misguided argument regarding the remedy proposed in a separate action, the Court will permit ACT, in the role of amicus curiae, to address the court for no more than ten minutes at the Tunney Act hearing, limited to the issue of the remedy proposed in this case. ACT may use this time to address any issues not previously raised in its comments and/or to emphasize the most significant issues relevant to the proposed consent decree raised in its comments. This time should not be spent summarizing or rehashing issues previously discussed in detail in the comments filed with the Department of Justice. Participation of ACT beyond these parameters will not be permitted, as such participation threatens to burden the Court with duplicative material and, more importantly, is unlikely to be of great assistance to the Court.
The so-called "Settling States" have proposed this same consent decree as a final judgment in the action in which they are parties, State of New York v. Microsoft Corp., No. 98-1233 (D.D.C.).
Based on the foregoing, it is this 4th day of March, 2002, hereby ORDERED that ACT's conditional motion to intervene is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that ACT shall be permitted to assist the Court in the role of amicus curiae by presenting not more than ten minutes of oral argument during the Tunney Act hearing; and it is further
ORDERED that, if ACT chooses to present argument to the Court at the upcoming Tunney Act hearing, it shall identify the individual who will be addressing the Court not later than 9 a.m. on March 5, 2002.
SO ORDERED.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case comes before the Court upon the filing of a motion by NetAction and Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) seeking "leave to participate in the March 6 Tunney Act Hearing and Beyond." Microsoft opposes NetAction and CPSR's joint motion on the grounds that their participation would be repetitious of the participation of other amici. To date, the United States has not taken a position with regard to NetAction and CPSR's joint motion. Upon review of NetAction and CPSR's joint motion, Microsoft's opposition thereto, and the record in this case, the Court shall deny NetAction and CPSR's request to be heard at the March 6, 2002, Tunney Act hearing. However, the Court will permit NetAction and CPSR, acting as amici curiae, to file a memorandum in reply to recent filings by the United States and Microsoft.
NetAction describes itself as a "national nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting the use of the Internet for effective grassroots citizen campaigns, and to educating the public, policymakers, and the media about technology policy issues." Joint Mot. at 2. CPSR describes itself as "a public-interest alliance of computer scientists and other interested individuals concerned about the impact of computer technology on society." Id. On January 28, 2002, NetAction and CPSR jointly submitted comments regarding the Revised Proposed Final Judgment to the United States Department of Justice. NetAction and CPSR's comments have since been provided in full to the Court as part of a group of approximately 47 "major" comments. In accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 16(f)(4), the Court will review the comments submitted pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 16(b) and accord them appropriate weight in conjunction with the public interest determination.
This Court possesses broad discretion to define the nature of third-party participation in Tunney Act proceedings. In pertinent part, 15 U.S.C. § 16(f)(3) instructs that the Court, in making its determination of the public interest, may
authorize full or limited participation in proceedings before the court by interested persons or agencies, including appearance amicus curiae, intervention as a party pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, . . . or participation in any other manner or extent which serves the public interest as the court may deem appropriate.15 U.S.C. § 16(f)(3). Judge Harold Greene eloquently and accurately summarized the Court's discretion pursuant to Section 16(f):
In the congressional reports and hearings, it was repeatedly emphasized that the court conducting a Tunney Act proceeding would have the widest possible latitude in choosing the appropriate method for collecting the information necessary to make its decision and that the various means specified in the subsection were to be regarded as permissive.
United States v. ATT, 552 F. Supp. 131, 218 (D.D.C. 1982) (citing legislative history), aff'd without opinion sub nom, Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983). NetAction and CPSR filed their motion on February 27, 2002, less than a week from the March 6, 2002, date of the Tunney Act hearing scheduled in the above-captioned case. The Court did not receive this motion in chambers until March 1, 2002. On February 28, 2002, the Court issued a series of orders granting five non-parties leave to address the Court as amici curiae for not more than ten minutes at the March 6, 2002, Tunney Act hearing. Each of these amici, like NetAction and CPSR, proposed argument, on various grounds, opposing entry of the proposed consent decree. In light of the participation authorized by these Orders, the Court concludes that any oral presentation by NetAction and CPSR at the March 6, 2002, hearing would likely be cumulative and largely unhelpful to the Court.
On March 4, 2002, the Court issued an order granting in part an additional entity's February 27, 2002, request to address the Court at the Tunney Act hearing. In contrast to the five other amici curiae, NetAction, and CPSR, this entity proposed argument generally in support of the proposed consent decree.
Notwithstanding this conclusion, the Court will permit NetAction and CPSR to jointly submit a memorandum in reply to the February 27, 2002, and March 1, 2002, memoranda filed by the United States and Microsoft. In accordance with LCvR 7.1(e), any such reply memorandum shall not exceed twenty-five pages. In their role of amici curiae, NetAction and CPSR may use the reply memorandum to raise arguments responsive to the February 27, 2002, and March 1, 2002, memoranda filed by the United States and Microsoft. NetAction and CPSR may also utilize the reply memorandum to raise new issues and arguments which were not raised in the comments NetAction and CPSR filed jointly with the Department of Justice. The reply memorandum should not be utilized to repeat arguments and assertions detailed in that entity's comments filed pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 16(b). Participation of NetAction and CPSR beyond these parameters will not be permitted, as such participation threatens to burden the Court with duplicative material and, more importantly, is unlikely to be of great assistance to the Court. Based on the foregoing, it is this 4th day of March, 2002, hereby
ORDERED that NetAction and CPSR's motion to participate in the March 6, 2002, Tunney Act hearing is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that, as described above, NetAction and CPSR, acting as limited amici curiae, may jointly file a reply memorandum not exceeding twenty-five pages; and it is further ORDERED that NetAction and CPSR's joint reply memorandum shall be filed not later than 10 a.m. on March 11, 2002;
SO ORDERED.
ORDER
Before the Court is Novell, Inc.'s motion to participate as amicus curiae. Novell's request for participation as amicus curiae asks only that the Court grant the company leave to file a memorandum not exceeding twenty-five pages so that it may address new issues raised by the United States' submission of the Second Revised Proposed Final Judgment. In accordance with this Court's discretion pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 16(f)(3), it is this 4th day of March, hereby ORDERED that Novell's motion to participate as amicus curiae is GRANTED. Novell shall be permitted to assist the Court in the role of amicus curiae in the following manner:
* As described in the Court's February 28, 2002, Orders permitting limited participation by certain amici, Novell may file a reply memorandum not exceeding twenty-five pages; and * Novell's reply memorandum shall be filed not later than 10 a.m. on March 11, 2002.
SO ORDERED.