Mohammad v. Saul
Filing
24
Order by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granting in part 22 Motion for Fourth Extension of Time to Answer. The new deadline is April 14, 2021. A status conference will occur on April 16, 2021 at 2:00 PM if the Commissioner fails to meet that deadline. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2021)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
EHSANULLAH MOHAMMAD,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
v.
ANDREW SAUL,
Defendant.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 20-cv-02272-JCS
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
FOURTH REQUEST FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME AND SETTING STATUS
CONFERENCE
Re: Dkt. No. 22
12
13
The Court has previously granted three requests for extensions of time for Defendant
14
Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”), to file his answer and a
15
certified copy of the administrative record. The answer and administrative record were originally
16
due September 23, 2020; the current deadline is March 22, 2021. On March 23, 2021, the
17
Commissioner filed a fourth request to continue the deadline, seeking an additional forty-five day
18
extension from the date of the motion, for a new deadline of May 7, 2021. The request is
19
supported by a declaration of Jebby Rasputnis, Executive Director of the Social Security
20
Administration’s Office of Appellate Operations, discussing factors generally addressing the
21
Commissioner’s delay in processing administrative records, but not addressing this case
22
specifically.
23
Plaintiff Ehsanullah Mohammad opposes the request, noting that nearly a year has passed
24
since he filed his complaint, and even with delays due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the
25
Commissioner has filed answers and administrative records in most other cases far more quickly.
26
The Court’s experience with other Social Security cases during the pandemic accords with
27
Mohammad’s position. While some delay is likely inevitable, the delay here is exceptional, and
28
the Commissioner has provided no explanation for why preparing this administrative record is
1
taking so much longer than others.
2
The Commissioner’s request, filed a day after the deadline it seeks to extend, places the
3
Court in a difficult position. If the request were denied, the Commissioner has already failed to
4
meet the deadline, and the Court would be left with little middle ground beyond relatively severe
5
measures like default judgment or contempt sanctions. The Commissioner notes that the delay
6
was caused by a calendaring error confusing the actual deadline with a date sixty days after the
7
Court’s order on the previous request, but even if counsel’s understanding of the deadline had
8
been correct, the present motion would have been filed only three days before the deadline it
9
sought to extend, which would not allow even the four days for Mohammad’s response permitted
by the Court’s local rules. See Civ. L.R. 6-3(b). The Court has repeatedly admonished the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Commissioner in other cases to bring motions for extensions well in advance of deadlines at issue,
12
allowing at the very least enough time for a response.1
13
The Commissioner’s motion is GRANTED IN PART, and the Commissioner is
14
ORDERED to file his answer and the administrative record no later than April 14, 2021. If the
15
answer and administrative record are not filed by that date, a status conference will occur on April
16
16, 2021 at 2:00 PM via Zoom webinar to determine appropriate next steps and sanctions, and
17
Executive Director Rasputnis is ORDERED to appear at that conference prepared to address the
18
specific reasons for delay in this case. That conference will be vacated if the answer and
19
administrative record are filed by the deadline.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
Dated: March 31, 2021
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The Court notes that Rasputnis’s declaration is dated March 17, 2021, suggesting that the
Commissioner may have been aware of the need for an extension at least six days before filing the
present motion on March 23, 2021, although it is possible that Rasputnis’s declaration was not
prepared specifically for this case. Counsel’s characterization of it in the motion as the “January
2021 Declaration of Jerry Rasputnis” is incorrect as to both the date of the declaration and
Rasputnis’s first name.
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?