Mark Stoyas v. Toshiba Corporation

I. DISCUSSION

2 The background of this case is set forth in the court’s prior orders and is not 3 repeated here. (See dkts. 65, 88.) METI, a ministry of the government of Japan, moves to 4 participate as amicus curiae asserting that it will “offer perspective and information 5 concerning the potential legal and economic repercussions of class certification on 6 Japanese capital markets, issuers, industries, and the country’s economy, as well the 7 implications . . . on Japanese securities laws and international comity.” (Mot. at 2.) 8 Plaintiffs Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund and New England Teamsters & 9 Trucking Industry Pension Fund (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) oppose the motion arguing that METI’s amicus brief does not provide any useful information relevant to the class certification issues and that instead, METI attempts to relitigate issues of forum non conveniens and international comity. (Dkt. 112, Opp.) Plaintiffs also argue that METI has failed to adhere to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 29. (Id.) A “district court has broad discretion to appoint amici curiae.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir.…