Farnsworth v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Defendant's Responsive Brief Should Not be Stricken and the Plaintiff's Social Security Action Deemed Unopposed, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/14/2018. The Court HEREBY ORDERS Defendant to SHOW CAUSE in writing on or before September 21, 2018, why her responsive brief should not be stricken from the record and Plaintiff's appeal deemed unopposed. (Valdez, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

MICHELLE FARNSWORTH.,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

Case No. 1:17-cv-00653-BAM

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSIVE BRIEF
SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN AND THE
PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL SECURITY ACTION
DEEMED UNOPPOSED

Defendant.

13

RESPONSE DUE: September 21, 2018
14
15
16

On May 10, 2017, Plaintiff Michelle Farnsworth filed a complaint seeking review of the

17 Commissioner’s denial of her social security benefits. On May 11, 2017, this Court entered a
18 scheduling order in this action. (Doc. 7). Pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order, Defendant was
19 required to evaluate this case and determine whether remand to the Commissioner is warranted.
20 (Doc. 7 at 6). In the event that Defendant did not agree to remand, Defendant was required to file
21 a responsive brief that includes:
22

(a) a plain description of appellant’s alleged physical or emotional impairments, when

23

appellant contends they became disabling, and how they disable appellant from work;

24

(b) a summary of all relevant medical evidence including an explanation of the significance

25

of clinical and laboratory findings and the purpose and effect of prescribed medication and

26

therapy;

27

(c) a summary of the relevant testimony at the administrative hearing;

28

(d) a recitation of the Commissioner’s findings and conclusions relevant to appellant’s

1

1

claims;

2

(e) a short, separate statement of each of appellant’s legal claims stated in terms of the

3

insufficiency of the evidence to support a particular finding of fact or reliance upon an

4

erroneous legal standard; and

5

(f) argument separately addressing each claimed error. Argument in support of each claim

6

of error must be supported by citation to legal authority and explanation of the application

7

of such authority to the facts of the particular case.

8 (Doc. 7-1 at 3-4). Defendant was warned that briefs that do not substantially comply with these
9 requirements will be stricken. (Doc. 7-1 at 4).
10

On February 13, 2018, Defendant filed her responsive brief which fails to comply with the

11 briefing requirements set forth above. (Doc. 19). Despite an extension of time, Defendant’s
12 responsive brief fails to include a summary of the relevant medical evidence and a summary of the
13 relevant hearing testimony. Perhaps most troubling, Defendant failed to meaningfully respond to
14 many of the claimed errors raised in Plaintiff’s opening brief. The Court cannot overlook such
15 disregard of the briefing requirements imposed in this action.
16

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS Defendant to SHOW CAUSE in writing on

17 or before September 21, 2018, why her responsive brief should not be stricken from the record
18 and Plaintiff’s appeal deemed unopposed.
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

September 14, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2