(SS) Her v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 29

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE AN OVERLONG REPLY BRIEF, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/15/2020. (Apodaca, P)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

PHOUA HER,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

No. 1:19-cv-1111-GSA
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
FILE AN OVERLONG REPLY BRIEF

v.
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social
Security,

(Doc. 28)

13
14

Defendant.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s counsel, appearing before this Court for the first time, moves for an order to
permit the filing of an attached overlong (thirteen page) reply brief. Doc. 28. In a perfunctory
motion which fails to identify any substantive or procedural basis for the motion, counsel
contends only that an overlong brief is necessary ‘[d]ue to the large quantity of relevant testimony
and evidence of record in this case, requiring extensive detail and discussion.” Doc. 28.
The Court limits the length of reply briefs to conserve the resources of both the Court and
the parties’ attorneys. A plaintiff is expected to set forth their contentions, and the evidence
supporting them, fully in the opening brief. The reply brief is intended to do no more than
present a very brief reply or clarification of matters set forth in the defendant’s opposition. In
many cases no reply brief is necessary.
The overlong reply brief submitted in this case could easily have satisfied the page
limitations but for the unnecessary repetition of arguments and citations already set forth in the
opening brief. The Court observes that the administrative record in this case consists of 757
1

1

pages, which is about average for a social security disability appeal. The Court finds that in this

2

case that the filing of an overlong brief was neither necessary nor appropriate based on this

3

modest record.

4

Unfortunately, requiring counsel to rewrite the reply brief does not support the objective

5

of economy of time, particularly since the Court was already required to review the brief to

6

determine whether its length was necessary. Accordingly, the Court will accept the brief in the

7

form that has been filed, however counsel should be on notice that future requests of this nature

8

will not likely be granted.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 15, 2020

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2