Torrez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 24

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSETTE JEANEEN TORREZ,

12
Plaintiff,

13
v.

14
15
16

Case No. 1:17-cv-00095-EPG
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE AND AMENDING
SCHEDULING ORDER

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner
of Social Security,1
Defendant.

17

On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint requesting a review of the Commissioner’s

18
19

denial of benefits. (ECF No. 1.) Pursuant to this Court’s scheduling order and subsequent

20

stipulations, Plaintiff filed her opening brief on November 4, 2016. (ECF No. 14.) Defendant has

21

filed one stipulation requesting an extension of time to file her opposition brief. (ECF No. 15.) In

22

that stipulation, Defendant agreed to file her opposition brief no later than January 19, 2017.

23

Defendant did not file her opposition brief by that deadline and the Court issued an Order to

24

Show Cause why sanctions should not be imposed for her failure to comply with court orders.

25

(ECF No. 20.)
On February 17, 2017, Defendant filed a response to the Order to Show Cause, explaining

26
27
1

28

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.
1

1

that defense counsel has a heavy workload and inadvertently missed the filing deadline. (ECF No.

2

22.) Defendant simultaneously filed an opposition brief.

3

The Court is willing to accept defense counsel’s representation that he is undertaking

4

additional efforts to avoid missing future deadlines and will accept the opposition brief as timely

5

filed. The Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 20) is DISCHARGED.

6

The Court notes, however, that this is not the first time that defense counsel has failed to

7

meet a scheduled deadline, nor even the first time that the Court has been required to issue an

8

Order to Show Cause. Attorneys are responsible for meeting the scheduled deadlines in their

9

cases and the Court is not required to invest time and resources into ensuring that attorneys are

10

meeting such a minimal level of practice. Failures to comply with scheduling orders waste Court

11

resources, unfairly impact plaintiff counsel’s time, and unnecessarily delay proceedings for the

12

plaintiffs themselves, many of whom have waited years for a final decision regarding their cases.

13

Defense counsel is thus advised that any future failures will be met with sanctions.

14
15

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.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 21, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2