Haney v. Berryhill

Filing 24

ORDER denying 22 Defendant's Motion For Leave To Appear And To Attend Oral Argument Via Telephone; denying 23 Plaintiff's Motion For Leave To Appear Without Local Counsel And To Attend Oral Argument Via Telephone. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 08/16/18. (emw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-070-DCK
KAREN BRYANT HANEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Defendant’s Motion For Leave To
Appear And To Attend Oral Argument Via Telephone” (Document No. 22) and Plaintiff’s
“Motion For Leave To Appear Without Local Counsel And To Attend Oral Argument Via
Telephone” (Document No. 23) filed August 16, 2018. The parties have consented to Magistrate
Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and immediate review is appropriate. After
careful consideration of the motions and the record, the undersigned will deny the motions.
The Court appreciates the parties’ concerns about convenience and costs; however, the
undersigned’s recent experience holding hearings in social security cases has demonstrated that
there is value in holding live hearings with counsel present. As such, the undersigned will
respectfully decline to cancel the hearing scheduled for September 18, 2018. Moreover, the
undersigned will insist on local counsel being present for both sides. See Local Rule 83.1 (b)(1).
The undersigned notes that the Court has scheduled back-to-back hearings on this date, and
that in the past the Government has reduced costs by sending one attorney to represent the
Commissioner in multiple actions on the same date. Nevertheless, the Court will allow the
Government to be represented solely by a fully prepared local assistant U.S. Attorney, if the

Government determines that is a more efficient use of resources. If the Government wishes to
proceed with “local counsel,” an appropriate Notice of Appearance shall be filed on or before
September 7, 2018.
Likewise, in this instance at least, the Court will excuse the appearance of Plaintiff’s
counsel, Mr. Osterhout, provided his local counsel is fully prepared and able to appear on his
behalf.
The undersigned notes that the parties are required to make a good faith attempt to resolve
or narrow the issues in this case on or before September 4, 2018. See (Document No. 21). If the
parties make significant progress in narrowing the issues, the Court might consider allowing a
telephone conference or supplemental briefing instead of holding a hearing.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Defendant’s Motion For Leave To Appear And
To Attend Oral Argument Via Telephone” (Document No. 22) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion For Leave To Appear Without
Local Counsel And To Attend Oral Argument Via Telephone” (Document No. 23) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

Signed: August 16, 2018

2