Lemay v. Berryhill
MINUTE ORDER is made at the direction of the Court, the Honorable James P. Donohue. Plaintiff's opening brief (Dkt. 11 ) fails to comply with LCR 5(f). In addition, plaintiff fails to comply with briefing requirements set forth in the Co urt's Scheduling Order. Accordingly, the Court STRIKES plaintiff's opening brief, Dkt. 11 , for failure to comply with the local rules of this district as well as the Scheduling Order. Plaintiff shall file an amended opening brief by no later than Friday, August 25, 2017. All other deadlines in the Scheduling Order, Dkt. 10, remain unchanged. See order for complete details. (AE)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
SARAH MICHELLE LEMAY,
Case No. C17-733-JPD
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
The following Minute Order is made at the direction of the Court, the Honorable James
P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff’s opening brief (Dkt. 11) fails to comply with LCR 5(f), which provides,
“Proof of service of all filings required or permitted to be served . . . shall be made by
certificate or acknowledgement of service on the document itself. Parties should not file a
separate proof of service document unless it is necessary.” Here, plaintiff has neither filed a
separate certificate of service, nor affixed a certificate of service on plaintiff’s opening brief, as
required by LCR 5(f). See Dkt. 11.
In addition, plaintiff fails to comply with briefing requirements set forth in the Court’s
Scheduling Order, which requires plaintiff to identify the alleged errors on page one of the
opening brief with specificity. The Scheduling Order provides that “a general statement of an
issue, such as ‘the ALJ’s decision to deny benefits is not supported by substantial evidence,’ is
MINUTE ORDER - 1
unacceptable.” Dkt. 10 at 2. Despite this directive, plaintiff’s opening brief includes just such
a general and unhelpful statement of the issue: “The issue before this Court is whether the
Commissioner’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s application for SSI and SSDI is supported by
substantial evidence and free of legal error.” Dkt. 11 at 1.
Accordingly, the Court STRIKES plaintiff’s opening brief, Dkt. 11, for failure to
comply with the local rules of this district as well as the Scheduling Order. Plaintiff is advised
that in the future, if a Certificate of Service is not appended to a brief or other filing, the Court
will order that the brief or other filing be stricken and re-filed in a format that otherwise
complies with LCR 5(f).
Plaintiff shall file an amended opening brief by no later than Friday, August
25, 2017. All other deadlines in the Scheduling Order, Dkt. 10, remain unchanged.
The Clerk is directed to send to a copy of the Order to all counsel of record.
DATED this 23rd day of August, 2017.
WILLIAM M. McCOOL, Clerk
MINUTE ORDER - 2
s/ Tim Farrell
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?