Davis v. Barnhart et al

Filing 267

ORDER Re Hearing on February 3, 2012. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 2/1/2012. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 TERRENCE DAVIS, 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Plaintiff, No. C-06-6108 EMC RELATED TO No. C-09-0980 EMC v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, 12 13 Defendant. ___________________________________/ 14 ORDER RE HEARING ON FEBRUARY 3, 2012 JOHN DOE, 15 16 17 Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, 18 19 Defendant. ___________________________________/ 20 21 The Court has been informed there is confusion as to which motions are set for hearing on 22 the Court’s calendar on February 3, 2012. This order clarifies that only Defendant’s motion for 23 summary judgment (Davis Docket No. 195) is set for hearing on that date. Plaintiffs’ previously 24 filed summary judgment motion will not be heard until after the Court rules on Defendant’s motion, 25 and after any additional discovery and briefing related to Plaintiffs’ motion is completed – as 26 contemplated by Judge Patel per her comments at the hearing in November 2010, see Docket No. 27 192 (Tr. at 4, 7, 22), and further as stipulated by the parties and ordered by Judge Patel shortly 28 thereafter. See Docket No. 191 (Stip. & Order ¶ 8). To the extent the briefs on Defendant’s motion 1 incorporate by reference the briefs on Plaintiffs’ earlier motion, the Court will consider those 2 materials. 3 The Court, however, shall hold a “status conference” on Plaintiffs’ motion for summary need for further discovery and briefing on Plaintiffs’ motion. At this juncture, given Judge Patel’s 6 effective denial without prejudice of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, see Docket No. 192 7 (Tr. at 22) (stating that “I certainly couldn’t grant summary judgment on the motion the way it is”), 8 the Court is inclined to have Plaintiffs file a renewed motion for summary judgment (assuming they 9 wish to proceed with a summary judgment motion) after any needed merits discovery is completed. 10 Such a motion would incorporate any new developments that have taken place and/or evidence that 11 For the Northern District of California judgment at the hearing scheduled for February 3, 2012. This status conference shall address the 5 United States District Court 4 has come about since Plaintiffs filed their original motion in August 2010. See Davis Docket No. 12 155 (motion). 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: February 1, 2012 17 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?