Wise v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER allowing defendant to file an untimely responsive brief and modifying the briefing schedule. Plaintiff may file a reply brief on or before April 15, 2012. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 3/21/2012. (Timken, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 LANIEKA N. WISE, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) ) Defendant. ) ) _____________________________________ ) Case No. 11-cv-00690-SKO ORDER ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO FILE AN UNTIMELY RESPONSIVE BRIEF AND MODIFYING THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE (Docs. 17, 18) 19 20 I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 21 On February 14, 2012, the Court granted the parties' stipulation and proposed order for an 22 extension of time allowing Defendant Commissioner of Social Security ("Defendant") to file a 23 responsive brief. (Doc. 16.) Pursuant to the Court's order, Defendant's responsive brief was due on 24 or before March 9, 2012. (Doc. 16, 2:18.) Defendant did not file a responsive brief by that deadline. 25 On March 20, 2012, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order requesting that 26 Defendant be granted a second extension of time to file a responsive brief. (Doc. 17.) The parties 27 did not address the issue that Defendant's brief had been due eleven (11) days earlier, but simply 28 requested an extension to April 9, 2012. (Doc. 17.) 1 The next day, on March 21, 2012, Defendant filed a responsive brief. (Doc. 18.) The Court 2 had not yet ruled on the parties' stipulation and proposed order requesting an extension of time to 3 allow Defendant to file a responsive brief. (Doc. 17.) Additionally, Defendant had not sought 4 permission from the Court to file an untimely brief. 5 For the reasons set forth below, the Court will accept the filing of Defendant's untimely 6 responsive brief but cautions counsel that continued noncompliance with Court orders and rules will 7 be met with extreme disfavor and may be grounds for the imposition of any and all sanctions 8 authorized by statute, rule, or within the inherent power of the Court. 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 On February 14, 2012, the Court ordered that Defendant's responsive brief was due on or 11 before March 9, 2012. (Doc. 16, 2:18.) Defendant did not file a brief by that deadline, but instead 12 requested an extension of time on March 21, 2012 – eleven (11) days after the brief was due. 13 The Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, 14 Rule 144(d) provides as follows: "Counsel shall seek to obtain a necessary extension . . . as soon as 15 the need for an extension becomes apparent. Requests for Court-approved extensions brought on 16 the required filing date for the pleading or other document are looked upon with disfavor." As such, 17 the parties' request on March 20, 2012, for an extension of time (Doc. 17), filed eleven (11) days 18 after the responsive brief was due on March 9, 2012, fails to comply with the Local Rules. Further, 19 Defendant's untimely filing of the responsive brief (Doc. 18) on March 21, 2012, twelve (12) days 20 after the Court ordered deadline of March 9, 2012, is also improper as Defendant failed to obtain 21 permission from the Court to file a late brief. 22 The Court recognizes, however, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, that Defendant's 23 counsel was impacted by her workload and the "imminent office move" of the Social Security 24 Regional Counsel's office. (Doc. 17, 2:24-3:2.) The Court further recognizes that the parties have 25 agreed to and stipulated that Defendant may file a responsive prior to April 9, 2012. As such, in the 26 interest of justice, the Court will exercise its discretion and accept the filing of Defendant's untimely 27 responsive brief. (Doc. 18.) Plaintiff's reply brief is thus due on or before April 15, 2012. See Doc. 28 2 1 7, 2:27-3:2 (ordering that the reply brief shall be filed with the Court within 15 days after service of 2 the respondent's brief). 3 Defendant's counsel is cautioned, however, that compliance with the Court's orders and the 4 Local Rules is mandatory and not discretionary. Local Rule 110 provides that "[f]ailure of counsel 5 or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for 6 imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent 7 power of the Court." As such, counsel is advised that continued disregard for Court orders and rules 8 shall be looked upon with extreme disfavor. 9 III. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. 12 CONCLUSION AND ORDER The Court will accept and consider Defendant's untimely filed responsive brief (Doc. 18); and 13 2. Plaintiff may file a reply brief on or before April 15, 2012. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: ie14hj March 21, 2012 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?