Texas Blockchain Council v. Department of Energy — Entry #21: Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Riot Platforms, Inc., Texas Blockchain Council, re [18] MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief by Casey Roberts

Case 6:24-cv-00099-ADA Document 21 Filed 02/28/24 Page 1 of 4


                       IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                  WACO DIVISION

 TEXAS BLOCKCHAIN COUNCIL, a nonprofit
 association; RIOT PLATFORMS, INC.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.
                                                              Civil Action No. 6:24-cv-00099-
 OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET;                             ADA
 SHALANDA YOUNG, in her official capacity as
 Director of Office of Management and Budget;
 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; JENNIFER M.
 GRANHOLM, in her official capacity as Secretary
 of Energy; ENERGY INFORMATION
 ADMINISTRATION; JOSEPH DECAROLIS, in
 his official capacity as Administrator of Energy
 Information Administration,

 Defendants.


      PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO NON-PARTY SIERRA CLUB’S MOTION FOR
            LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF AND MOTION TO STRIKE

         Plaintiffs Texas Blockchain Council (“TBC”) and Riot Platforms, Inc. (“Riot”) though

their undersigned counsel, file this Opposition to Non-Party Sierra Club’s Motion for Leave to File

Amicus Brief (the “Motion”) and move to strike Sierra Club’s frivolous and moot filings.

         The Court should deny Sierra Club’s Motion. As Sierra Club knew when it filed the

Motion, the EIA had discontinued the emergency collection of Form EIA-862 the evening before.

See Ex. 1. Sierra Club had also been informed by Plaintiffs’ counsel shortly before filing its Motion

that: (1) the parties had reached an agreement resolving any remaining issues; (2) the Court had

issued an order cancelling the preliminary injunction hearing at the request of the parties; and (3)

the Court had ordered that the parties file their agreement with the Court. Plaintiffs’ Counsel also


                                                 1
4860-0054-6217.1


            Case 6:24-cv-00099-ADA Document 21 Filed 02/28/24 Page 2 of 4


attached the Order and Sierra Club counsel confirmed its receipt. Ex. 2 (email exchange between

Kate Huddleston and Mark Siegmund).

          Nonetheless, roughly five hours later, Sierra Club filed its Motion anyway. In it, Sierra

Club stated only that “Counsel for Plaintiff oppose” the Motion—and failed to “certif[y] the

specific reason that no agreement could be made.” ECF No. 18 at 1. In doing so, Sierra Club failed

to comply with Local Civil Rule CV-7(G). The Motion should be denied for that reason alone.

Notwithstanding that failure, the Motion should be denied as moot. Although Plaintiffs believe

that Sierra Club’s filing—and the manner in which it was made—further underscores the

pretextual and politically-motivated nature of the “emergency” survey, its filing was mooted by

the survey’s withdrawal. And as Sierra Club knew, the parties had reached an agreement in

principle on remaining terms hours earlier—further mooting the Motion. It nonetheless filed the

motion—based on the purported need to weigh in on “the reasonable likelihood of public harm

absent the [EIA’s] emergency collection of information regarding cryptocurrency mining

facilities.” ECF No. 18 at 1. Yet this rationale could not possibly be legitimate when the survey

had already been discontinued and an agreement of the parties reached. Moreover, the amicus brief

fails to comply with Rule 29(a)(3)(b) because it will not aid the Court in disposition of the case,

as the issue is now moot and pending final resolution between the parties.

         Fatal procedural defects aside, the Motion is also of no aid to the Court. Sierra Club makes

no effort to address why Plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail on the merits, why they are not being

harmed, or how the harm is not immediate and irreparable. It chooses to address only the public

interest – and even then says nothing about how public harm is imminent absent the “emergency”

survey. The failure to offer any comment on the Court’s prior ruling, and the agreement of the

parties actually involved, demonstrates this is this is a not a filing designed to aid the Court – but


4860-0054-6217.1


               Case 6:24-cv-00099-ADA Document 21 Filed 02/28/24 Page 3 of 4


   a filing designed to aid the Sierra Club. As the Fifth Circuit has noted in summarily rejecting other

   “spurious” filings like this one, there is “[n]o need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning

   and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable

   merit.” Crain v. C.I.R., 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).

             For these reasons, the Court should: (1) deny the Motion; and (2) strike Sierra Club’s

   amicus brief and exhibits from the record because these filings are improper, not relevant, and

   violate Rule 29.


                                                  Respectfully submitted,

                                                                            /s/ Mark D. Siegmund
Kara M. Rollins                     Chris Davis                             Mark D. Siegmund
Russell G. Ryan*                    Joshua Smeltzer                         State Bar Number 24117055
NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES                 GRAY REED                               CHERRY JOHNSON
ALLIANCE                            1601 Elm St., Suite 4600                SIEGMUND JAMES PLLC
1225 19th St. NW, Suite 450         Dallas, TX 75201                        The Roosevelt Tower
Washington, DC 20036                Tel: (469) 320-6215                     400 Austin Avenue, 9th Floor
Tel: (202) 869-5210                 Fax: (469) 320-6926                     Waco, Texas 76701
Fax: (202) 869-5238                 [email protected]                     Tel: (254) 732-2242
[email protected]             [email protected]                  Fax: (866) 627-3509
[email protected]                                                        [email protected]
*Pro Hac Vice Motions               Greg White
Forthcoming                         900 Washington Avenue
                                    Suite 800
                                    Waco, Texas 76701
                                    Tel: (254) 342-3003
                                    Fax: (469) 320-6926

                                          Counsel for Plaintiffs


   4860-0054-6217.1


            Case 6:24-cv-00099-ADA Document 21 Filed 02/28/24 Page 4 of 4


                                 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
         I certify that on February 28, 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was

transmitted using the CM/ECF system, which automatically sends notice and a copy of the filing

to all counsel of record.

                                                           /s/ Mark D. Siegmund
                                                           Mark D. Siegmund


4860-0054-6217.1