Lemay v. Berryhill

Filing 12

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7
8

SARAH MICHELLE LEMAY,

9
10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,

Case No. C17-733-JPD
MINUTE ORDER

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

14
15
16
17

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,

18

“Proof of service of all filings required or permitted to be served . . . shall be made by

19

certificate or acknowledgement of service on the document itself. Parties should not file a

20

separate proof of service document unless it is necessary.” Here, plaintiff has neither filed a

21

separate certificate of service, nor affixed a certificate of service on plaintiff’s opening brief, as

22

required by LCR 5(f). See Dkt. 11.

23

In addition, plaintiff fails to comply with briefing requirements set forth in the Court’s

24

Scheduling Order, which requires plaintiff to identify the alleged errors on page one of the

25

opening brief with specificity. The Scheduling Order provides that “a general statement of an

26

issue, such as ‘the ALJ’s decision to deny benefits is not supported by substantial evidence,’ is

MINUTE ORDER - 1

1

unacceptable.” Dkt. 10 at 2. Despite this directive, plaintiff’s opening brief includes just such

2

a general and unhelpful statement of the issue: “The issue before this Court is whether the

3

Commissioner’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s application for SSI and SSDI is supported by

4

substantial evidence and free of legal error.” Dkt. 11 at 1.

5

Accordingly, the Court STRIKES plaintiff’s opening brief, Dkt. 11, for failure to

6

comply with the local rules of this district as well as the Scheduling Order. Plaintiff is advised

7

that in the future, if a Certificate of Service is not appended to a brief or other filing, the Court

8

will order that the brief or other filing be stricken and re-filed in a format that otherwise

9

complies with LCR 5(f).

10
11

(2)

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.

12

(3)

The Clerk is directed to send to a copy of the Order to all counsel of record.

13

DATED this 23rd day of August, 2017.

14

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, Clerk

15
16

By:

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

MINUTE ORDER - 2

s/ Tim Farrell
Deputy Clerk