UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ... - Letters Blogatory

Case 1:11-mc-91078-WGY Document 31 Filed 12/05/11 Page 18 of 21
Federal Practice, 24.09-1[47](1969); (24.03 [3][a][i] (2010). Doubts regarding adequacy of
representation should be resolved in favor of the proposed intervenor because it allows the
court to resolve all related disputes in a single action. Federal Savings and Loan Insurance
Corp. v. Falls Chase Special Taxing District, 983 F.2d 211, 216 (11 th Cir. 1993).
Where the goals of the applicant are the same as those of the plaintiff or defendant,
adequacy of representation as of right is presumed, although that presumption can be
rebutted. Daggett, 172 F.3d at 9. Additionally, the presumption is “weak.” Stone v. First
Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305 (11 th Cir. 2004). While both Boston College and the Intervenors
seek to quash the Subpoenas based on the constitutional grounds, the Intervenors, but not
Boston College, also seek separate relief if this Court does not enter an order quashing the
Subpoenas. If this Court finds the Attorney General did not apply the MLAT Standards to
the MLAT Request, the Intervenors are requesting an order remanding this matter to the
Attorney General with instructions to consider the request for legal assistance in light of the
MLAT Standards.
To overcome a presumption of adequacy of representation based on an identity of
goals, an intervenor “need only offer an adequate explanation as to why is not sufficiently
represented by the named party.” B. Fernandez & Hnos., Inc. v. Caribbean Warehouse
Logistics, Inc., 440 F.3d 541 (1 st Cir. 2000). The goals of the Intervenors and Boston
College, while in some respects similar, are not identical and “similar” does not mean
“identical.” Stone, 371 F.3d at 1312. The presumption described in Daggett therefore,
does not apply or, if it does, it has been rebutted.
Based on the “modest” standard required for a showing of inadequacy of
representation, it is clear that, with respect to the claims based on the constitutional right to
life, the First Amendment and on the failure of the Attorney General to comply with terms of
the MLAT, the Intervenors’ interests are not adequately represented by existing parties.
18