ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

THELTON E. HENDERSON, District Judge.

Richard M. Peekema seeks permission to submit an amicus curiae brief to this Court regarding a potential explanation for the cause of the 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion. Amicus Application ("App.") at 1-2 (Dkt. No. 549). Specifically, Mr. Peekema, an attorney and retired Advisory Chemist for IBM Corporation, would like the Court to consider a research paper he authored for the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice entitled Causes of Natural Gas Pipeline Explosive Ruptures. App., Ex. A. For the reasons set forth below, Mr. Peekema's application is hereby DENIED.

I. District courts have authority to acceptm amicus briefs.

Though Mr. Peekema cites no law in support of his motion, federal district courts do possess the inherent authority to accept amicus briefs. See In re Bayshore Ford Truck Sales, Inc., 471 F.3d 1233, 1249 n.34 (11th Cir. 2006) ("[D]istrict courts possess the inherent authority to appoint `friends of the court' to assist in their proceedings."); Jin v. Ministry of State Sec., 557 F.Supp.2d 131, 136 (D.D.C. 2008) ("[D]istrict courts have inherent authority to appoint or deny amici.").

The role of an amicus is to assist the court "in cases of general public interest by making suggestions to the court, by providing supplementary assistance to existing counsel, and by insuring a complete and plenary presentation of difficult issues so that the court may reach a proper decision." Newark Branch, N.A.A.C.P. v. Town of Harrison, N.J., 940 F.2d 792, 808 (3d Cir. 1991). Courts permit briefing from an amicus when: (1) a party is not represented competently; (2) the amicus has an interest that may be affected by the decision but does not entitle the amicus to intervene; or (3) the amicus has unique information or a new perspective that can help the court beyond what the parties can provide. Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 125 F.3d 1062, 1064 (7th Cir. 1997). Otherwise, leave to file an amicus brief should be denied. Id.

II. The issues contained in the proposed amicus brief were adequately briefed before the Court and mooted by the Court's Order on Motions in Limine.

Mr. Peekema's paper outlines a possible alternative cause of the San Bruno explosion — an "air-gas explosive expulsion" — that the National Transportation Safety Board ("NTSB") did not consider in its investigation of the explosion. App. at 3. Mr. Peekema asks: "But do [the alleged deficiencies in the NTSB's causation determination] have any bearing on the criminal trial in this case?" Id. at 4. The answer, is "No." The Court has reiterated many times that this is not a trial about the explosion. See, e.g., Order on Mots. in Limine at 37 (Dkt. No. 460). Moreover, the Court ruled that the jury is not tasked with determining the cause of the San Bruno explosion, and therefore that evidence relating to the cause of the explosion is inadmissible. Id. at 11. Finally, the Court also specifically ruled that the NTSB's conclusions about the cause of the explosion are inadmissible. Id. at 14-15.

For these reasons, the Court sees no unique information or perspective to be gained from Mr. Peekema's amicus brief that would be relevant to the issues before the Court. Accordingly, Mr. Peekama's application is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.