Haseltine v. Astrue

Filing 38

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR RELIEF (ahy, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Defendant. JO ANNE E. HASELTINE, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. C08-5782 BZ ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Before the Court is defendant's motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) from the Court's revised order, which was a consequence of defendant's failure to file an opposition. May 9, 2009. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel transcript on The Court issued an order granting plaintiff's

motion on June 3, 2009, on the ground that it was unopposed. At plaintiff's unopposed request, the Court issued a revised order on June 24, 2009. Defendant's motion for relief was

filed on August 28, 2008, approximately 90 days after its opposition was due. Defendant contends that its failure to file an opposition constituted excusable neglect and supported its position with 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

a declaration of counsel.

Defendant explains the difficulties

that its office has had with the recent departure of four senior attorneys. The office required significant

restructuring and the instant case was inadvertently not reassigned. As a result, defendant was unaware that plaintiff

filed a motion to compel or a request for a revised order. Plaintiff's opposition makes rambling arguments claiming that the problems that defendant experienced were the sort of administrative problems which do not constitute excusable neglect. Plaintiff also makes accusations that defendant's

reason for delay was actually a subterfuge. After considering the factors set forth in Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (1993), the Court finds that defendant's delay was understandable and not unduly long. The Court finds no need for argument and VACATES the hearing set for Wednesday, October 21, 2009. It is ORDERED that

defendant's motion for relief is GRANTED and the revised order is VACATED. It is further ORDERED that defendant's opposition

to plaintiff's motion to compel shall be filed by October 1, 2009 and plaintiff's reply, if any, shall be filed by October 9, 2009. necessary. Dated: September 23, 2009 Bernard Zimmerman United States Magistrate Judge
G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\HASELTINE v. ASTRUE\ORDER GRANTING D'S REQUEST FOR RELIEF.wpd

The Court will schedule a hearing if one is

2