IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)
Next Court Deadline: February 15, 2002
DEFENDANT MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TO THE CALIFORNIA PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR INTERVENTION, OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE
The California Plaintiffs do not satisfy the criteria for intervention set forth in
Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, nor do they have views beyond those already
expressed or a public interest perspective sufficient to merit amicus participation. Their
motion for intervention or in the alternative for leave to participate as an amicus curiae should
The California Plaintiffs Do Not Meet the
Substantive Requirements for Intervention.
The Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16(b) et seq. (the
“Tunney Act”) does not allow a party, including a party in arguably related private cases, to
intervene as of right in a Tunney Act proceeding. Nor is permissive intervention appropriate.
The Court, in its discretion, may consider limited participation of an interested non-party at
such time as the Court makes its public interest determination. 15 U.S.C. § 16 (f) (3).
Intervention is then at the discretion of the Court following the closing of the comment and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION
response period. Id. This case has not yet reached that point, and there is no present basis for
any other participation; nor would even a timely motion for permission intervention be
A. The California Plaintiffs Have No Right to Intervene.
Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
(a) Intervention of Right. Upon timely application anyone
shall be permitted to intervene in an action : (1) when a statute
of the United States