Torrez v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER DISCHARING the Order to Show Cause and Amending the Scheduling Order. The Court is willing to accept defense counsel's representation that he is undertaking additional efforts to avoid missing future deadlines and will accept the opposit ion brief as timely filed. The Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 20 ) is DISCHARGED. Based on Defendant's late-filed opposition brief, Plaintiff may have additional time to file a reply brief, if she desires. Plaintiff may file any reply brief no later than 3/8/2017. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 2/21/2017. (Rooney, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOSETTE JEANEEN TORREZ,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00095-EPG
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE AND AMENDING
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner
of Social Security,1
On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint requesting a review of the Commissioner’s
denial of benefits. (ECF No. 1.) Pursuant to this Court’s scheduling order and subsequent
stipulations, Plaintiff filed her opening brief on November 4, 2016. (ECF No. 14.) Defendant has
filed one stipulation requesting an extension of time to file her opposition brief. (ECF No. 15.) In
that stipulation, Defendant agreed to file her opposition brief no later than January 19, 2017.
Defendant did not file her opposition brief by that deadline and the Court issued an Order to
Show Cause why sanctions should not be imposed for her failure to comply with court orders.
(ECF No. 20.)
On February 17, 2017, Defendant filed a response to the Order to Show Cause, explaining
Consistent with Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Nancy A. Berryhill, the new acting
Commissioner of Social Security, is substituted in place of Carolyn W. Colvin.
that defense counsel has a heavy workload and inadvertently missed the filing deadline. (ECF No.
22.) Defendant simultaneously filed an opposition brief.
The Court is willing to accept defense counsel’s representation that he is undertaking
additional efforts to avoid missing future deadlines and will accept the opposition brief as timely
filed. The Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 20) is DISCHARGED.
The Court notes, however, that this is not the first time that defense counsel has failed to
meet a scheduled deadline, nor even the first time that the Court has been required to issue an
Order to Show Cause. Attorneys are responsible for meeting the scheduled deadlines in their
cases and the Court is not required to invest time and resources into ensuring that attorneys are
meeting such a minimal level of practice. Failures to comply with scheduling orders waste Court
resources, unfairly impact plaintiff counsel’s time, and unnecessarily delay proceedings for the
plaintiffs themselves, many of whom have waited years for a final decision regarding their cases.
Defense counsel is thus advised that any future failures will be met with sanctions.
Based on Defendant’s late filed opposition brief, Plaintiff may have additional time to file
a reply brief, if she desires. Plaintiff may file any reply brief no later than March 8, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 21, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?