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