Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 78 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 1 of 13

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8

9

10 AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, a District

11

of Columbia non-profit corporation, TAMMY RENEE COOPER, SCARLETT MILES,

12

MARVELENA QUESADA, ARLENE DOHERTY, ALICE MARJORIE DONOVAN, BILLIE JEAN

13

KEITH, GEORGE P. SMITH, and DOROTHY JACKSON on behalf of themselves and all others

14 similarly situated,

15

Plaintiffs,

16

v.

No. C 05-04696 WHA
ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS IN PART AND (2) REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING

17

MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, in her official capacity,

18 and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

19

Defendants.

/

20

21

INTRODUCTION

22

In this disability-rights action, the issue is whether the Social Security Administration is

23 obligated by the Rehabilitation Act to provide special services to blind recipients without regard

24 to whether blindness (as opposed to age or some other condition) is the basis for their benefits.

25 This order holds the Social Security Administration is so obligated, notwithstanding the special

26 notice provision in the Social Security Act. For the reasons stated below, defendants’ Rule

27 12(b)(1) motion is DENIED and defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion is DENIED in part.

28 In addition, this order requests further briefing on the issues outlined below.

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 78 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 2 of 13

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

STATEMENT

2

1.

PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS.

3

Plaintiffs are eight visually impaired individuals and the American Council for the

4 Blind, a national membership organization of visually impaired persons. Each individual

5 plaintiff receives some kind of Social Security benefit, either through the Old-Age, Survivors,

6 and Disability Insurance (“OASDI”) program or the Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”)

7 program. At the time of the complaint, one of these plaintiffs (Dorothy Jackson) was also a

8 representative payee for her husband, an SSI recipient. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of

9 similarly situated persons.

10

Plaintiffs assert claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the due process

11 clause. According to the complaint, defendants “have and continue to discriminate unlawfully

12 against the named Plaintiffs and the class members by failing to communicate with Plaintiffs

13 and the class members in an accessible format” in violation of Section 504 (Compl. ¶ 103).

14 The complaint further alleges that defendants’ failure to communicate in an accessible format

15 denies plaintiffs “adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard” regarding their Social

16 Security benefits (a protected property interest) in violation of the due process clause.

17 Plaintiffs assert subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 28 U.S.C. 1361.

18 They request declaratory relief and a permanent injunction regarding the agency’s duties to

19 provide information in accessible formats. Defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims for

20 lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

21

2.

NOTICE POLICY.

22

In 1988 and 1990, Congress added a special notice provision to the Social Security Act.1

23 By its own terms, the notice provision does not apply to all blind participants but rather to those

24 participants who receive or apply for benefits on the basis of blindness. Pursuant to this

25 provision, individuals receiving benefits based on their blindness are “entitled” to elect from

26 three different methods of receiving notice for any decision or determination: (i) a mailed

27

28

1 Congress extended the notice provision to the OASDI program and the SSI program at different

times.

2

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 78 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 3 of 13

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 notice with a follow-up phone call; (ii) certified mail; or (iii) “notification by some alternative

2 procedure established by the Commissioner of Social Security and agreed to by the individual.”

3 42 U.S.C. 1383(1).

4

The agency implements this statutory provision through its Program Operations Manual

5 System (“POMS”). Pursuant to agency policy via POMS, participants may elect to receive

6 notice of decisions and determinations either through: (i) certified mail; (ii) first-class mail

7 followed by a telephone call; or (iii) first-class mail. By the terms of the policy as stated in

8 POMS, the options only apply to individuals applying for or receiving benefits “by reason of

9 blindness.” The parties dispute whether the agency in practice extends these notice options to

10 all blind or visually impaired recipients of Social Security benefits or only those recipients who

11 receive benefits based on blindness. For example, plaintiffs contend that defendants do not

12 provide the follow-up phone call to individuals who are blind but receive benefits based on age.

13

3.

THE REHABILITATION ACT AND ITS REGULATIONS.

14

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, enacted in 1973, reads in pertinent part

15 (29 U.S.C. 794):

16

No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the

United States, as defined in section 705(20) of this title, shall,

17

solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the

participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to

18

discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal

financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by

19

any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service.

20 In addition to Section 504’s general mandate against discrimination, regulations promulgated by

21 the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to Section 504 set forth requirements

22 concerning notice to individuals with disabilities. In particular, the regulations stipulate that the

23 agency “shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids where necessary to afford an individual with

24 handicaps an equal opportunity” to participate in offered programs. The regulations then go on

25 to name “readers, Brailled materials, [and] audio recordings” as examples of auxiliary aids that

26 are appropriate for persons with impaired vision. 45 C.F.R. 85.3.

27

28

3

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 78 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 4 of 13

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

4.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES PURSUED BY PLAINTIFFS.

2

Two of the individual plaintiffs, Billie Jean Keith and Tammy Renee Cooper, pursued

3 their discrimination claims through procedures under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,

4 which are set forth in 45 C.F.R. 85.61. Plaintiffs have shown that Keith and Cooper exhausted

5 administrative remedies pursuant to these procedures, as follows.

6

In March 1994, plaintiff Keith received an overpayment determination from the agency,

7 which she then contested through proceedings available under the Social Security Act.

8 She eventually prevailed in that dispute years later. In December 1994, on the advice of an

9 agency employee, plaintiff Keith separately filed a discrimination complaint with the Office

10 of Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services, which housed the

11 Social Security agency at that time.2 In her discrimination complaint, she asserted that the

12 agency’s refusal to provide her with communications in large print amounted to discrimination

13 in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. In August 1995, the Regional Office of

14 General Counsel denied Ms. Keith’s complaint, finding the agency was not in violation of

15 Section 504 as alleged. Keith did not receive a letter informing her of this decision until 1997,

16 at which point she appealed the decision (Keith Decl. ¶ 8–31). Five years later, in 1999, she

17 received a letter from the Office of General Counsel explaining the office’s delay in responding

18 to her complaint (Keith Decl. Exh. R):

19

In June of 1998 . . . our office was considering the issues raised in

your complaint on a nationwide scale and we would defer response

20

to your individual complaint until we have made a

recommendation to the Agency regarding the handling of these and

21

other issues nationwide. We have since determined not to grant

nationwide relief to visually impaired individuals under the civil

22

right laws.

23 The letter stated that the office still intended to investigate her case individually. In July 1999,

24 the Regional Chief Officer sent her a letter stating that “[t]here is no support for your claim that

25 your civil rights were violated.” The letter continued: “We are satisfied that SSA provides

26 sufficient alternatives to ensure that blind individuals, like yourself, receive effective

27 communication from SSA” (Keith Decl. Exh. S). Shortly thereafter, Keith appealed the

28
2 The Social Security Administration became a separate agency in 1995.

4

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 78 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 5 of 13

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 regional office’s decision to the Office of the General Counsel. To date, Keith has not received

2 notice of the results of her appeal.

3

In September 2003, the agency suspended the benefits of plaintiff Cooper because of an

4 alleged overpayment. After an attorney helped her resolve that matter, she filed an

5 administrative complaint with the Office of General Counsel pursuant to 45 C.F.R. 85.61 in

6 2004. She brought the discrimination complaint on behalf of herself and all similarly situated

7 persons, alleging discrimination under Section 504 and requesting that the agency communicate

8 through formats accessible to the visually impaired. In June 2004, Cooper received a “Letter of

9 Findings” from the Office of General Counsel, in which the Office concluded that “Ms. Cooper

10 was not discriminated against on the basis of a disability (blindness)” (Wilde Decl. Exh. D).

11 In July 2004, Cooper filed a timely request for reconsideration. It is now almost four years later

12 and Cooper has not received a decision in response to her request (Wilde Decl. ¶¶ 15–19).

13

In addition, plaintiffs allege that each of them has repeatedly requested that the agency

14 provide notices in an accessible format.

15

ANALYSIS

16

1.

LEGAL STANDARD.

17

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a court should dismiss a complaint

18 where there is no subject-matter jurisdiction. A party seeking to prove jurisdiction must

19 overcome the presumption that a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. See Stock West,

20 Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). In determining whether it has

21 subject-matter jurisdiction, a court may consider facts outside the pleadings. See St. Clair v.

22 City of Chico, 880 F.2d 199, 201–02 (9th Cir. 1989).

23

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests for the legal sufficiency of the claims

24 alleged in the complaint. See Parks Sch. of Business v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484

25 (9th Cir. 1995). All material allegations of the complaint are taken as true and construed in the

26 light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 340

27 (9th Cir. 1996). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not

28 need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his

5

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 78 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 6 of 13

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of

2 the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right

3 to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955,

4 1964–65 (2007).3

5

2.

SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION.

6

A. Jurisdiction Under Section 1331.

7

Defendants argue that the Court lacks federal-question jurisdiction over plaintiffs’

8 claims because the claims arise under the Social Security Act and plaintiffs have not met the

9 Act’s requirements for judicial review. Plaintiffs, in response, argue that their claims arise only

10 under the Rehabilitation Act and the due process clause. This order holds that plaintiffs’ claims

11 do not arise under the Social Security Act and are therefore not subject to the requirements of

12 Section 405(g).

13

The Social Security Act contains an exclusive remedy provision, Section 405(h), which

14 bars suits brought under Section 1331 “to recover on any claim arising under” the Social

15 Security Act. 42 U.S.C. 405(h). Claims deemed to “arise under” the Social Security Act can

16 only be brought in federal court in accordance with the judicial review prerequisites of Section

17 405(g). These prerequisites include: (i) presentment of a claim for benefits to the Secretary of

18 the agency and (ii) exhaustion of administrative remedies. Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S.

19 467, 483 (1986). The first element (presentment) is not waivable but the second element

20 (exhaustion) is waivable. Briggs v. Sullivan, 886 F.2d 1132, 1138 (9th Cir. 1989).

21

The Supreme Court has liberally construed the meaning of “arising under” as it is used

22 in Section 405(h). In Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 760–61 (1975), the Court held that a

23 claim that arises under the Social Security Act can be barred by Section 405(h) even if it also

24 arises under the Constitution if the Act “provides both the standing and the substantive basis for

25 the presentation of their constitutional contentions.” In Shalala v. Illinois Council, 529 U.S. 1,

26 10, 15 (2000), the Supreme Court concluded that a challenge by an association of nursing

27

28

3 Internal citations and quotations have been omitted unless otherwise indicated.

6

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 78 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 7 of 13

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 homes to Medicare regulations on “general legal grounds” arose under the Social Security Act

2 despite the fact that the association made no immediate claim for benefits. The Court explained

3 that its precedent “foreclose[d] distinctions based upon the ‘potential future’ versus the ‘actual

4 present’ nature of the claim, the ‘general legal’ versus the ‘fact-specific’ nature of the challenge,

5 the ‘collateral’ versus the ‘noncollateral’ nature of the issues, or the ‘declaratory’ versus

6 ‘injunctive’ nature of the relief sought.” Id. at 13–14.

7

In a 1992 decision, the Ninth Circuit held that claims predicated on Section 504 of the

8 Rehabilitation Act do not “arise under” the Social Security Act. J.L. v. Soc. Sec. Admin.,

9 971 F.2d 260, 263 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled in part on other grounds, Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S.

10 187 (1996). There, a putative class of mentally handicapped persons alleged that the agency’s

11 complicated application procedures — which made it difficult for mentally handicapped

12 individuals to apply for benefits — violated Section 504. Id. at 262. The Ninth Circuit

13 concluded that the claims were not subject to the Section 405(h) bar but nonetheless decided to

14 require exhaustion of administrative remedies because of “prudential concerns.” Id. at 270.

15

Defendants argue that the holding in J.L. is no longer good law given the Supreme

16 Court’s more recent holding in Illinois Council. Indeed, in Davis v. Astrue, 513 F. Supp. 2d

17 1137, 1144 (N.D. Cal 2007), Judge Marilyn Hall Patel concluded that the holding in J. L.

18 “appears inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s subsequent holding in Illinois Council that legal

19 challenges to agency practices and procedures are subject to the limitations in Section 405(h).”

20 In Davis, a mentally ill individual whose benefits had been terminated brought claims under the

21 Rehabilitation Act and due process clause, challenging the procedures the agency used for

22 reviewing the benefits of mentally ill beneficiaries. Id. at 1141. Judge Patel concluded that the

23 claims arose under the Social Security Act but that waiver of Section 405(g)’s exhaustion

24 requirement was appropriate. Id. at 1145–46.

25

Assuming arguendo that J.L. is eviscerated (on this point of law) and that some

26 Rehabilitation Act claims could “arise under” the Social Security Act, as in Davis, this order

27 concludes that this is not such a case. The claims here must be distinguished from the claims in

28 Davis, Illinois Council, and Salfi. In those cases the plaintiffs were either making an immediate

7

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 78 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 8 of 13

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 claim for benefits or attempting to establish a future right to benefits. Here, plaintiffs’

2 discrimination claims are not necessarily tied to a present or future claim for benefits under the

3 Social Security Act. To be sure, meaningful access to Social Security communications would

4 aid plaintiffs in pursuing future claims for benefits. But plaintiffs also seek such access for

5 reasons unrelated to benefits — for example, in order to reduce the logistical burden of

6 arranging for a sighted person to read them a notice or to reduce the risks associated with

7 exposing personal information (e.g., social security numbers) to sighted persons.

8 Moreover, unlike in Illinois Council, where the plaintiffs challenged regulations that imposed

9 sanctions for nursing home deficiencies, and in Salfi, where the plaintiffs challenged a

10 substantive rule for determining benefits, here, plaintiffs do not dispute the standards for

11 determining benefits (or sanctions), but rather the procedures and practices for notifying

12 participants of benefit determinations. Plaintiffs’ due process claims anticipate a future claim

13 for benefits but they do not challenge the substantive law for determining those benefits, only

14 the methods through which individuals are notified of all manner of notices from the agency.

15

The Rehabilitation Act, not the Social Security Act, establishes the basis for plaintiffs’

16 discrimination claims because the Rehabilitation Act creates the duty on the part of the agency

17 to provide meaningful access to participants. As for the due process claims, it is the due process

18 clause itself, not the Social Security Act, that provides the basis for plaintiffs’ challenge to the

19 agency’s notice procedures.

20

Indeed, under defendants’ Catch-22 interpretation of Section 405, the Social Security

21 Act would never provide the standing for claims such as plaintiffs’ when brought independently

22 of a claim for benefits. The Catch 22 is that plaintiffs’ grievance is untethered to any benefit

23 claim and relates only to notices. Applying Section 405(h) therefore risks depriving plaintiffs

24 of any judicial review of their claims. In such a situation, the so-called “Michigan Academy

25 exception” cautions against application of Section 405(h)’s bar. In Bowen v. Michigan

26 Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 681 (1986), the Supreme Court declined to

27 extend the Section 405(h) judicial bar to claims concerning Medicare Part B because to do so

28 would mean the claims would receive no judicial review at all. “This is an extreme position,

8

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 78 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 9 of 13

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 and one we would be most reluctant to adopt without a showing of ‘clear and convincing

2 evidence’ to overcome the strong presumption that Congress did not mean to prohibit all

3 judicial review of executive action.” Id. at 680–681.

4

Here, adopting defendants’ construction of Section 405(g) and Section 405(h) “would

5 not simply channel review through the agency, but would mean no review at all.” Ill. Council,

6 529 U.S. at 19 (characterizing the holding in Michigan Academy). Defendants suggest that

7 individuals cannot satisfy the presentment requirement in the absence of a deprivation of

8 benefits. Defendants concede that five of the plaintiffs — all of whom have in the past

9 experienced some deprivation of benefits — have satisfied the presentment requirement.

10 But defendants argue that the other three plaintiffs — who have not suffered a deprivation of

11 benefits — cannot satisfy the presentment requirement. Further, in a footnote, defendants make

12 clear that a challenge to the notice provision “will not be entitled to” judicial review in the

13 absence of an initial determination concerning benefits (Br. 8, n.6). If discrimination claims

14 such as plaintiffs’ “arise under” the Social Security Act, as defendants argue, then a plaintiff

15 would only be able to receive judicial review of a discrimination claim when paired with a

16 claim for benefits. This would mean that a participant who is currently receiving benefits

17 would not be able to receive judicial review of her discrimination claim unless and until she

18 somehow receives an adverse determination from the agency — e.g., her benefits are

19 suspended, terminated, or reduced. Under Michigan Academy, this is an “extreme position” that

20 should be eschewed. This order finds no evidence that Congress intended this “extreme

21 position” and therefore declines to adopt defendants’ construction of Section 405(h)’s reach.

22

Indeed, pamphlets and correspondences distributed by defendants encouraged plaintiffs

23 to pursue discrimination claims through the administrative proceedings available under

24 Section 504 regulations (Wilde Decl. Exh. A). A pamphlet titled “Civil Rights Complaint

25 Procedures for the Public” and labeled as an “SSA Publication” lays out the procedures

26 available to individuals who wish to file a discrimination complaint against the agency.

27 The procedures described are those made available via regulations under the Rehabilitation Act

28 (45 C.F.R. 85.61) — not via the Social Security Act. These pamphlets and correspondences

9

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 78 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 10 of 13

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 reflect the assumption that discrimination claims such as plaintiffs arise under the Rehabilitation

2 Act and not the Social Security Act. In their reply, defendants assert that they should not be

3 held responsible for these materials because “nothing in the section 504 regulations indicates

4 that they culminate in an automatic right of judicial review where jurisdiction is foreclosed by

5 other applicable statutes” (Reply 11, n.9). Perhaps defendants now seek to abandon an earlier

6 position in order to gain strategic advantage in these litigation proceedings. This would be

7 troubling enough. But even more troubling is the possibility that the agency channeled the

8 discrimination claims of plaintiffs and others into a black hole from which there is no escape.

9

In sum, this order holds that plaintiffs’ claims do not arise under the Social Security Act

10 and are therefore not barred by Section 405. The Rehabilitation Act and the due process clause

11 provide the “standing and the substantive basis” for plaintiffs’ claims, not the Social

12 Security Act.

13

B. Whether to Proceed Under the Rehabilitation Act

Or the Administrative Procedure Act.

14

Defendants further contend that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act “contains no

15

private right of action” against the agency and that Congress intended claims such as plaintiffs

16

to be brought pursuant to the APA. In J.L., the Ninth Circuit concluded that Section 504

17

created a private right of action against the Social Security Administration, including claims

18

for equitable relief and money damages. J.L., 971 F.2d at 269. Subsequent to that decision,

19

the Supreme Court in Lane v. Pena overruled J.L. in part by concluding that Section 504 did

20

not create a claim for money damages against a federal agency. Lane, 518 U.S. at 197.

21

Plaintiffs argue, however, that in Lane the Supreme Court did not bar a private right of action

22

against a federal agency for equitable relief. Indeed, the district court in Mendez v. Gearan,

23

947 F. Supp. 1364, 1368 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (Henderson, J.), concluded that a private right of

24

action for equitable relief is still available in the Ninth Circuit — even in the wake of Lane.

25

26

27

28

10

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 78 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 11 of 13

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Id. at 1368 (concluding that Lane did not “have the effect of eliminating actions, only

2 eliminating one formerly available remedy”).4

3

In Mendez, the Peace Corps argued that a challenge to its medical eligibility rules and

4 procedures should be brought under the APA and not the Rehabilitation Act. The district court

5 conducted a comparative analysis of the “advantages and disadvantages of applying one statute

6 over the other in various contexts,” concluding that plaintiff’s case was “more appropriately

7 brought under the standards established by [Section] 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.” Id. at

8 1368–71. The court pointed out that applying the APA was particularly appropriate when a

9 case “involves facts, policies, and statutes that are within the agency’s expertise” but that the

10 APA may not be appropriate when “the focus of the review is on information outside the ken of

11 the agency.” Id at 1369. For example, “[w]here the primary issue in a challenge to a federal

12 agency’s action is the application of a statute that the agency is not uniquely qualified to

13 interpret, utilizing the APA would not be an efficient use of resources.” Ibid. On the other

14 hand, the court noted that a challenge to a general policy of an agency, which might require

15 insight into how the agency operates and the ultimate mission of the agency, would make

16 application of the APA more appropriate. Ibid.

17

This order concludes that jurisdiction under the Rehabilitation Act is proper here at least

18 for purposes of deciding the main legal issue presented, namely, whether the special statutory

19 notice provision of the Social Security Act limits the duties created by the Rehabilitation Act.

20

3.

SECTION 504 TRUMPS THE SPECIAL NOTICE PROVISION.

21

At the core of the parties’ dispute is the question of how the special notice provision in

22 the Social Security Act interacts with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and its regulations.

23 Defendants concede that the Rehabilitation Act applies to the agency but assert that the

24

25
4 Defendants also argue that the Supreme Court's 2001 decision in Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S.
26 275, 286 (2001), in which the Court articulated a new test for determining when a private right of action can be
implied from a statute, casts further doubt on the continued vitality of the holding in J.L. The Court has a duty
27 to follow Ninth Circuit authority, however, and this order concludes that a private right of action for equitable
relief still exists under Ninth Circuit precedent. See Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1170 (9th Cir. 2001)
28 (“Binding authority must be followed unless and until overruled by a body competent to do so”).

11

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 78 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 12 of 13

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 agency’s duties are confined by the special notice provision.5 According to defendants, the

2 special notice provision is a “legislative declaration” of the agency’s duties under the

3 Rehabilitation Act. This order rejects that argument. By its own terms, the special notice

4 provision applies only to participants who receive benefits based on blindness. The provision

5 does not address the needs of blind participants who receive benefits on another basis, for

6 example, age. The needs of this latter group are real and legitimate. That Congress somehow

7 intended to relieve the agency of its obligations to them under the Rehabilitation Act is

8 far-fetched. Congress intended to improve the notice provided to blind recipients when it

9 passed the special notice provision, not to limit such notice.

10

This order holds that defendants have a continuing duty under Section 504 of the

11 Rehabilitation Act to provide meaningful access to all visually disabled recipients of and

12 applicants to Social Security programs. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a

13 claim is therefore DENIED in part. Resolution of all other issues concerning the merits of

14 plaintiffs’ claims is postponed pending a ruling on the proper course of future proceedings,

15 as discussed in more detail below.

16

Having resolved the fundamental legal question that divides the parties, the Court

17 requests the assistance of counsel in determining how to proceed. The parties should brief the

18 merits of proceeding via the following options:

19

1. Actively continue litigating this case under Section 504 of the

20

Rehabilitation Act, decide the issue of class certification, and determine the

21

scope of relief, if any.

22

2. Stay the proceedings of the case so that the agency can engage in

23

rulemaking or pursue other agency action in light of the ruling on the merits

24

made herein. This course would require that the agency concede the correctness

25

26

27

28
5 At the hearing, defendants conceded that the Rehabilitation Act applies to the agency.

12

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 78 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 13 of 13

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

of this ruling on the merits. The Court would maintain jurisdiction to review

2

any rule or policy subsequently adopted.6

3

3. Remand the action to the agency for rulemaking or other agency

4

action. This would also require that the agency concede the correctness of this

5

ruling on the merits. This course, however, might be problematic because there

6

seems to be no affirmative agency action forming the predicate for original

7

subject-matter jurisdiction.

8

4. Certify this order for interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C.

9

1292(b) and stay all proceedings.

10 The parties will have until MAY 7, 2008, AT NOON to file memoranda addressing the options

11 outlined above, or any other options the parties may suggest.

12

CONCLUSION

13

For the reasons stated above, this order DENIES defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of

14 subject-matter jurisdiction and DENIES in part defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a

15 claim. This order requests further briefing on the issues outlined above.

16

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

19 Dated: April 23, 2008. 20

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21

22

23

24

25
6 The case presents an interesting challenge in that some of the issues presented seem particularly
26 well-suited to resolution by a court while others seem particularly well-suited to resolution by the agency.
A court is better positioned to resolve the legal disputes presented — particularly given that defendants are not
27 uniquely qualified to interpret the Rehabilitation Act. On the other hand, defendants may well be in a better
position to craft workable and effective solutions to the disability problems identified given its extensive
28 knowledge of the operations of the agency.

13

 
 Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 1 of 38

1 WONDIE RUSSELL (Bar No. 77990)

PETER J. CROSBY (Bar No. 115588) 2 ESTA L. BRAND (Bar No. 83329)

3 JACOB N. FOSTER (Bar No. 250785) ADIL HAQ (Bar No. 255435)

4 HELLER EHRMAN LLP

333 Bush Street

5 San Francisco, CA 94104

6

Telephone: +1.415.772.6000 Facsimile: +1.415.772.6268

7 Wondie.Russell@hellerehrman.com

8 ARLENE MAYERSON (Bar No. 79310)

LARISA M. CUMMINGS (Bar No. 131076) 9 SILVIA YEE (Bar No. 222737)

10

DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND DEFENSE FUND 2212 Sixth Street

11 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: +1.510.644.2555

12 Facsimile: +1.510.841.8645

lcummings@dredf.org 13 See Signature Page for List of Additional Counsel

14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

17 AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, a

18

District of Columbia non-profit corporation, TAMMY RENEE COOPER, SCARLETT

19 MILES, MARVELENA QUESADA, ARLENE DOHERTY, ALICE MARJORIE DONOVAN,
20 BILLIE JEAN KEITH, GEORGE P. SMITH,

DOROTHY JACKSON, MARY ANN 21 ALEXANDER, and LAURA M. RUSSELL, on

22

behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

23

24

v.

Plaintiffs,

Case No.: C 05-4696 MJJ
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(CLASS ACTION)

25 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the
26 Social Security Administration, in her official capacity, and SOCIAL SECURITY
27 ADMINISTRATION Defendants.
28

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 2 of 38

1

INTRODUCTION

2 1. Millions of blind and visually impaired Americans rely on benefits from
3 the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) to meet their basic needs. They are
4 among the 48 million Americans who receive benefits from the Old Age, Survivors
5 and Disability Insurance (“OASDI”) program based on an earnings history, and the
6 seven million Americans who receive Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) based
7 on financial need and either age, blindness, or other disabilities. Despite the
8 obvious and critical importance of these benefits, SSA regularly communicates with
9 blind and visually impaired persons in standard print format, which they cannot
10 read. SSA regularly suspends the benefits of blind and visually impaired recipients
11 for failing to comply with requirements set forth in standard print documents that
12 they cannot read and for failing to return printed forms that they cannot complete.
13 As a result, many have suffered extreme financial and personal hardship. Others
14 have felt compelled to divulge private information, including their Social Security
15 Numbers, to sighted third parties and have become more susceptible to identity
16 theft.
17 2. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and federal regulations
18 require SSA to communicate effectively with its applicants, beneficiaries, and
19 recipients. SSA must reasonably accommodate blind and visually impaired
20 persons to ensure that they have an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy
21 the benefits of SSA programs. Such reasonable accommodations for persons with
22 impaired vision would ordinarily include readers, Brailled materials, audio
23 recordings, electronic mail, large print format and computer disks. Over three
24 decades after the enactment of the Rehabilitation Act, however, SSA refuses to
25 communicate with blind and visually impaired persons in these or any other
26 accessible formats. Such conduct bars blind and visually impaired persons from
27 participating equally in SSA programs and deprives them of critical benefits without
28

1
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 3 of 38

1 meaningful notice in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Due

2 Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4

3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

5 §§ 1331 and 1361. Plaintiffs seek a declaration of rights pursuant to the

6 Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202.

7

4. Plaintiffs Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie

8 Donovan, and George P. Smith reside within this District. Venue is proper pursuant

9 to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) in the Northern District of California because a substantial

10 part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District and

11 because Defendants maintain several offices and operate in this District.

12

PARTIES

13

5. Plaintiff American Council of the Blind (“ACB”) is a national

14 membership organization of blind and visually impaired persons organized as a

15 non-profit corporation under the laws of the District of Columbia. ACB brings this

16 action on behalf of its blind and visually impaired members who are suffering

17 deprivations of their rights and protected interests as a result of Defendants’

18 conduct and policies. ACB has approximately eighteen thousand members

19 nationwide, many of whom are blind or visually impaired.

20

6. Plaintiff Tammy Renee Cooper is a blind, 38 year old recipient of SSI

21 and beneficiary of Social Security Disability Insurance (“SSDI”), which is part of the

22 OASDI program, based on blindness. She resides in Los Angeles, California.

23

7. Plaintiff Scarlett Miles is a visually impaired, 56 year old recipient of

24 SSI based on blindness. She resides in Eagle Point, Oregon.

25

8. Plaintiff Marvelena Quesada is a blind 33 year old beneficiary of SSDI

26 based on blindness and has received SSI based on blindness. She resides in San

27 Francisco, California.

28

2
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 4 of 38

1

9. Plaintiff Arlene Doherty is a blind, 72 year old beneficiary of Social

2 Security retirement insurance benefits, which are part of the OASDI program,

3 based on age and a prior recipient of SSI based on blindness. She resides in San

4 Francisco, California.

5

10. Plaintiff Alice Marjorie Donovan is a blind, 45 year old recipient of SSI

6 based on blindness. She resides in Burlingame, California.

7

11. Plaintiff Billie Jean Keith is a visually impaired, 69 year old beneficiary

8 of Social Security retirement insurance benefits based on age and a prior recipient

9 of SSI based on blindness. She resides in Arlington, Virginia.

10

12. Plaintiff George P. Smith is a blind, 65 year old recipient of SSI and a

11 beneficiary of SSDI benefits based on blindness, residing in Oakland, California.

12

13. Plaintiff Dorothy Jackson is an 82 year old Social Security Retirement

13 beneficiary whose small retirement benefit is supplemented by an SSI grant based

14 on age and blindness. In addition she has served as representative payee for

15 Melvin Jackson, her husband, who received a small spousal retirement benefit

16 supplemented by an SSI grant based on age, until he died in September 2007.

17 Mrs. Jackson resides in North Hollywood in the City of Los Angeles, California.

18

14. Plaintiff Mary Ann Alexander is a 46 year old recipient of SSDI benefits

19 based on blindness and is a representative payee for her daughter, Julianne, who

20 is 17 and receives auxiliary SSDI benefits. Ms. Alexander resides in East

21 Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.

22

15. Plaintiff Laura M. Russell is a 61 year old recipient of SSI and SSDI

23 benefits based on blindness. Additionally, she receives some benefits through her

24 husband, himself a legally blind recipient of SSI and SSDI, and is a representative

25 payee for her son, Kevin Michael Russell, who receives Social Security benefits

26 based on developmental disability. Mrs. Russell resides in Los Angeles, California.

27

16. Defendant Michael J. Astrue is the Commissioner of SSA. As such, he

28 is charged by federal law with administering and supervising all benefits programs

3
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 5 of 38

1 administered by SSA nationwide, including SSI, OASDI, and Special Veterans

2 Benefits under Title VIII of the Social Security Act. He is also responsible for taking

3 new Medicare applications and for determining eligibility for the Low Income

4 Subsidy under the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit. He is sued in his

5 capacity as the official charged with performing the statutory and regulatory duties

6 of SSA and with supervisory responsibility over SSA and its divisions, agents,

7 employees and representatives.

8

17. Defendant Social Security Administration administers and supervises

9 all SSA benefits programs nationwide, including SSI, OASDI, and Special Veterans

10 Benefits under Title VIII of the Social Security Act, as well as taking new Medicare

11 applications and for determining eligibility for the Low Income Subsidy under the

12 Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit.

13

18. All divisions, agents, employees and representatives of Defendants

14 were acting within the scope of their agency or employment while making any of

15 the statements and committing any of the acts alleged herein. Defendants and any

16 of their respective divisions, agents, employees and representatives each acted as

17 the agent or representative of each other in committing any of the acts or making

18 any of the statements alleged herein.

19

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

20

19. Plaintiffs ACB, Tammy Renee Cooper, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena

21 Quesada, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. 22 Smith, Dorothy Jackson, Mary Ann Alexander and Laura M. Russell (“Plaintiffs”) 23 bring this complaint on behalf of themselves and as representatives of a class of 24 similarly situated persons. The class consists of all current and future applicants, 25 beneficiaries, recipients, and representative payees of SSA programs who have 26 visual impairments that substantially limit the major life activity of seeing and 27 require accessible formats to ensure access to the information that SSA provides to 28 applicants, beneficiaries, and recipients of its programs.

4
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 6 of 38

1

20. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that the

2 class consists of approximately three million persons and is so numerous that

3 joinder of all class members is impracticable.

4

21. There are questions of law and fact common to all class members that

5 predominate over questions only affecting individual class members, including,

6 among others: (a) whether Defendants’ refusal to offer or provide class members

7 with communications in accessible formats bars their equal participation in SSA

8 benefits programs in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and

9 (b) whether Defendants’ policy of denying, reducing, suspending or terminating the

10 class members’ SSA benefits solely upon standard print notices violates the Due

11 Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

12

22. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of all class members, they

13 arise from the same course of conduct by Defendants, and the relief sought is

14 common to all class members. In addition, Defendants have acted and continue to

15 act on grounds generally applicable to all class members, thereby making relief

16 appropriate to the class as a whole.

17

23. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class

18 members.

19

STATEMENT OF FACTS

20

24. In providing benefits to millions of indigent and disabled Americans,

21 SSA regularly communicates complex information to applicants, beneficiaries, and 22 recipients of its programs. SSA regularly sends blind persons standard print 23 notices about their individual benefits. These notices regularly include calculations 24 of awards, denials, reductions, suspensions and terminations of their benefits, 25 printed forms to complete, appointments to meet with SSA representatives, 26 requests for re-certification of their eligibility, and deadlines for responding to SSA 27 requests. 28

5
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 7 of 38

1

25. SSA only provides such individual notices in standard print format.

2 Despite repeated requests and complaints, SSA refuses to provide individual

3 notices in formats that are accessible to blind persons, such as Braille, large print,

4 electronic mail and audiotape recording.

5

26. Standard print notices about individual benefits are difficult to

6 comprehend, analyze, and recall based on a single reading. (See, for example,

7 Exhibits 1 and 2.) They are even more difficult to comprehend based on hearing

8 the information read aloud a single time. Such notices often establish requirements

9 and rapid deadlines that blind persons cannot meet unless they are provided in

10 accessible format. Such notices typically state that SSA will suspend benefits if the 11 beneficiary or recipient does not respond within a short time frame. (See, for

12 example, Exhibit 3.) In particular, written notice of suspension of SSI benefits

13 requires recipients and beneficiaries to file an appeal within ten days in order for

14 their SSI benefits to continue pending determination on appeal. Other written

15 notices require blind persons to provide financial and medical records, which blind

16 persons cannot gather quickly or without sighted assistance, which can be quite

17 expensive. Because blind persons often cannot comply with these requirements

18 and deadlines without having the requests in an accessible format, their SSA

19 benefits are suspended or terminated for failure to comply. This conduct on the

20 part of SSA deprives blind persons of equal access to essential information they

21 need to maintain their benefits.

22

27. SSA also provides more general information in its benefits publications

23 to applicants, beneficiaries, and recipients about its programs, including:

24 discussions of applicable rules, procedures, and conditions on eligibility for

25 benefits; procedures and rights pertaining to appealing adverse determinations;

26 and the duties imposed upon beneficiaries and recipients.

27

28. While SSA provides a select list of publications about its programs in

28 accessible formats, SSA has not adequately publicized the availability of such

6
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 8 of 38

1 information or trained its staff in field offices or at the SSA 800 toll-free telephone

2 number to ensure that blind persons are informed of its availability. Indeed, many

3 blind persons who request such information are told that it does not exist. Callers

4 who do receive program information must know to ask for precise publication titles

5 or get additional SSA contact numbers — information that is not readily obtainable

6 from SSA. This conduct deprives blind persons of equal access to essential

7 program information they need to maintain their benefits.

8

29. In 2002, SSA advised in Program Operations Manual System

9 ("POMS"), an operations manual designed to instruct SSA personnel on agency

10 policy, that it would record the preference of blind beneficiaries to receive benefits

11 information in Braille, but that it could not actually provide such information in

12 Braille at that time. In POMS DI 11005.070 B. 2. e., SSA advised that blind

13 beneficiaries could request (but not receive) benefits information to be provided in

14 Braille. But this provision was eliminated earlier this year. The latest POMS DI

15 11005.070 B. 2. e. reads: “Braille notices are no longer available.” Because it

16 does not provide Braille, SSA recently advised in EM-050209, an internal SSA

17 “policy instruction,” that beneficiaries who elect to receive written notices in Braille

18 should nevertheless be provided standard print notice by U.S. mail.

19

30. The POMS list two “options” for blind persons who request benefits

20 information in an accessible format: a “supplemental telephone call within five

21 working days after the initial notice is mailed”; or a standard print notice sent by

22 certified U.S. mail. A person who requests supplemental telephone calls will only

23 get some notices read over the telephone. According to POMS NL 00603.030,

24 SSA does not offer to read all notices sent, only “vital” notices pertaining to

25 “decisions, determinations or proposed actions” that affect benefits. SSA policy

26 does not require other communications to be read over the telephone, such as

27 notices of appointments with SSA, requests for documents, notices pertaining to

28

7
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 9 of 38

1 consultative examinations and other actions necessary for re-determination of

2 eligibility. Neither option provides effective communication to blind persons.

3

31. A telephone call to read only certain notices sent cannot fully or

4 effectively communicate the complex information SSA routinely provides its

5 beneficiaries and recipients. A single telephone call is inferior to reading

6 information for oneself. The standard print notices contain complex calculations

7 and rules that Plaintiffs must review privately, repeatedly, and at their own pace.

8 Sometimes the notices also contain information of a personal nature. In addition,

9 SSA consistently fails to inform blind persons of the supplemental telephone call

10 option, fails to clarify that this option is limited to certain kinds of notices, and often

11 fails to provide a supplemental telephone call even to the blind persons who

12 actually request one.

13

32. A standard print notice sent by certified mail does not provide effective

14 communication. Blind persons cannot read standard written documents, regardless

15 of how they arrive in the mail. Certified U.S. mail places a greater burden on blind

16 persons than regular U.S. mail because blind persons will be forced to travel to the

17 post office to sign for a certified letter if they miss delivery, and travel is typically

18 difficult and exhausting for blind persons.

19

33. SSA has a policy of suspending blind persons’ benefits without

20 providing a supplemental telephone call. In POMS NL 00603.040, SSA directs its 21 representatives: “Do not cancel a proposed action solely because the advance 22 notice was not read to the claimant/beneficiary. If you are unable to reach the 23 individual to read a due process notice that was mailed, complete the proposed 24 action as usual.” (Emphasis added.) Although it is obvious that blind persons

25 cannot read standard written documents, the POMS states that “the due process

26 requirement is met because a notice of proposed action was mailed to the

27 claimant.” In POMS NL 00603.050, SSA directs its representatives to make only

28 three attempts by telephone, in a span of only seven days following the date of the

8
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 10 of 38

1 standard written notice, and further, “if the notice refers to a pamphlet, read only the

2 notice over the telephone. If assistance is required with the pamphlet, advise the

3 beneficiary to re-contact the [field office] about the pamphlet.”

4

TAMMY RENEE COOPER

5

34. Ms. Cooper receives SSI and SSDI on the basis of blindness and

6 financial need. In 1988, Ms. Cooper began receiving benefits from SSA on the

7 basis of blindness. She has been totally blind since 1988. With few exceptions,

8 SSA has communicated with Ms. Cooper in standard print format, which she

9 cannot read. SSA has not informed Ms. Cooper of her right to a reasonable

10 accommodation of her disability or inquired about her preference for an accessible

11 format for written communications.

12

35. Ms. Cooper has repeatedly requested SSA to accommodate her

13 disability by providing audio tape recordings of the contents of written information

14 sent to her. SSA denied her requests for audio tape recordings of written

15 communications. As a result, Ms. Cooper has failed to meet deadlines and other

16 requirements established in written communications from SSA because she cannot

17 read them.

18

36. In 2000, an SSA representative called Ms. Cooper by telephone and

19 offered to read a written communication from SSA. In 2001, she received another

20 such telephone call from an SSA representative. Ms. Cooper relied on telephone

21 calls from SSA representatives to notify her of any communications from SSA and

22 to read the contents of such communications to her.

23

37. When Ms. Cooper did not receive another such telephone call, she

24 reasonably assumed that SSA had not sent any further written communications to

25 her because she was told that she would receive a telephone call from an SSA

26 representative if any such communications were sent.

27

38. In September of 2003, SSA suspended her SSI and SSDI benefits.

28 Ms. Cooper only discovered that SSA had suspended her benefits when her bank

9
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 11 of 38

1 account balance was lower than expected. Immediately after she realized her

2 benefits were suspended, Ms. Cooper contacted SSA and was told by an SSA

3 representative that SSA suspended her benefits because she had received more in

4 benefits than she was entitled to receive. An SSA representative stated that SSA

5 mailed her a written notice of the suspension and that her benefits were suspended

6 when she failed to respond.

7

39. Ms. Cooper informed the SSA representative that she did not receive

8 any such communication and that she could not read written communications

9 because she was blind. She repeated her request to receive communications from

10 SSA by audio tape recording. Her request was refused.

11

40. Subsequently Ms. Cooper’s attorney obtained a copy of the

12 suspension notice from SSA. The notice, dated August 5, 2003, stated, “We are

13 stopping the checks because we need correct information about your name,

14 address or bank account.” (Exhibit 4.) It made no mention of her having received

15 more benefits than she was entitled to receive. The notice also stated that if she

16 appealed within ten days she could keep getting the same check. Had she been

17 able to read the notice she would have promptly appealed and her benefits would

18 have continued uninterrupted.

19

41. Instead, Ms. Cooper suffered severe financial hardship for the ensuing

20 two months. Without SSI and SSDI benefits, Ms. Cooper could not buy basic

21 necessities, including groceries or hygiene products. As a result, Ms. Cooper was

22 forced to borrow money from others to meet her basic needs and those of her

23 young son.

24

42. Ms. Cooper later did receive a Notice of Overpayment dated

25 September 30, 2003 indicating that she had in fact been paid more than she was

26 entitled to receive and that the amount of the overpayment would be subtracted

27 from future SSI grants. The notice, in addition to providing information on how to

28 appeal, also contained information on how to seek a waiver of recovery of the

10
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 12 of 38

1 overpayment if she agreed there was an overpayment but contended she was not

2 at fault in creating the overpayment. (Exhibit 5.) Ms. Cooper was not able to read

3 the notice since it was in standard print format. However, at that point she had an

4 attorney who was successful in obtaining a waiver of recovery of the overpayment.

5

43. In February of 2004, pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 85.61, Ms. Cooper filed a

6 complaint with the SSA Office of the General Counsel on behalf of herself and all

7 other similarly situated persons. Her complaint alleged that SSA had discriminated

8 against her and all similarly situated persons in violation of Section 504 of the

9 Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Her complaint requested, among other things, an order

10 requiring SSA to communicate effectively with her and all similarly situated persons

11 in a format that is accessible to blind persons and visually impaired persons,

12 including audio tape recordings.

13

44. On June 4, 2004, SSA Region X Office of the General Counsel sent a

14 letter to Ms. Cooper stating that SSA had not discriminated against Ms. Cooper and

15 denying her request for audio tape recordings of standard print communications.

16

45. On July 12, 2004, through her attorney, Ms. Cooper filed a timely

17 request for reconsideration to the SSA Office of the General Counsel. SSA failed

18 to respond to Ms. Cooper’s appeal and failed to notify Ms. Cooper of the results of

19 her appeal within 60 days.

20

46. Ms. Cooper has exhausted her administrative remedies on behalf of

21 herself and all similarly situated persons pursuant to the procedures outlined by

22 governing Section 504 regulations. Ms. Cooper’s administrative complaint was

23 brought expressly on behalf of herself and all similarly situated blind persons who

24 do not receive effective communication from SSA in an accessible format. Ms.

25 Cooper’s administrative complaint also provided Defendants an opportunity to cure

26 the violation, as to her and all similarly situated persons. Defendants rejected Ms.

27 Cooper’s administrative complaint and failed to respond to her request for

28 reconsideration. Defendants’ conduct with respect to Ms. Cooper’s complaint

11
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 13 of 38

1 demonstrates that the administrative complaint process is futile and will not provide

2 relief to Ms. Cooper and all similarly situated persons.

3

47. In September 2005 Ms. Cooper received a notice from SSA, explaining

4 the change in her benefits associated with her move from Oregon to California, in

5 standard print format and, for the first time, on audio cassette tape as well. SSA

6 has not provided any assurances to Ms. Cooper that it will continue to provide

7 notices in an accessible format. She later received other notices from SSA only in

8 standard print format, and recently since her move to California, SSA has followed

9 up some standard print notices with telephone calls.

10

48. SSA continues to deny Ms. Cooper an equal opportunity to participate

11 in its programs by failing to provide notices in a format that is accessible to her.

12

SCARLETT MILES

13

49. Ms. Miles receives SSI on the basis of blindness and financial need.

14 She began receiving benefits when she was a teenager. Ms. Miles has been

15 visually impaired from a young age and is now blind. With few exceptions, SSA

16 has communicated with Ms. Miles only in standard print format, which she cannot

17 read. SSA has not informed Ms. Miles of her right to reasonable accommodation or

18 inquired about her preference for an accessible format for written communications.

19

50. Ms. Miles has repeatedly requested SSA to accommodate her

20 disability by providing her audio tape recordings of written communications or the

21 contents of such communications by electronic mail, which a computer software

22 program can read aloud to her repeatedly and as often as needed. Ms. Miles has

23 repeatedly requested SSA representatives contact her by telephone when SSA

24 mails a written communication. SSA refused her requests for communications in

25 an accessible format. As a result, Ms. Miles has failed to comply with deadlines

26 and other requirements established in written communications from SSA because

27 she cannot read them.

28

12
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 14 of 38

1

51. In mid-2004, Ms. Miles received a written form from SSA that she

2 could not read or complete. She returned the form to SSA and wrote on it that she

3 was blind and needed to receive communications in an accessible format. Several

4 months later, SSA sent her the same written form. She returned it and again wrote

5 that she was blind and needed to receive communications in an accessible format.

6 Several months later, in early 2005, SSA sent her the same written form a third

7 time. Ms. Miles called the SSA 800 telephone number for assistance. An SSA

8 representative scheduled a telephone appointment for her local SSA office to assist

9 her in completing the written form.

10

52. Shortly thereafter, an SSA representative from a local SSA office left a

11 voice message for Ms. Miles in response to her request for assistance. The SSA

12 representative stated:

13

“I’m a little confused why you wouldn’t have a family or

friend help you complete the questionnaire . . . Having a

14

phone appointment for something if you needed

15

assistance seems kind of silly because you can get a

friend or relative to help you or a neighbor. If you wanted

16

to come in and have us complete this, you know that

17

would be your choice, but I don’t see any need for you to have this appointment at all.”

18

19

53. Ms. Miles telephoned the SSA representative and stated that she did

20 not have any family or friends. Ms. Miles told the SSA representative that she

21 could not read the form. The SSA representative stated that SSA did not have staff

22 to assist Ms. Miles to fill out the form and suggested that “anyone” could fill out the

23 form for Ms. Miles because it was so “simple.” Ms. Miles responded that she did

24 not want to disclose her Social Security number to others because she does not

25 have a trusted friend or family member on whom she can rely. For the third time,

26 Ms. Miles returned the form and wrote on the document that she could not read it

27 because she is blind.

28

13
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 15 of 38

1

54. In mid-2005, Ms. Miles received the same written form in standard print

2 format for the fourth time. The form stated it was a “FINAL REQUEST” and that

3 Ms. Miles’ SSI benefits would be terminated if she did not complete and return the

4 form within 10 days. But Ms. Miles could not read the form and therefore could not

5 respond within the allotted time. On this occasion Ms. Miles was able to secure the

6 assistance of an attorney who provided her with a copy of the SSA notice in an

7 accessible format. Ms. Miles was then able to respond to SSA, albeit several

8 weeks late, and was assured by an SSA representative that her SSI benefits would

9 continue. As a result of SSA not communicating with her in accessible format, Ms.

10 Miles has suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress for fear that her

11 benefits will be suspended, which would be disastrous for her since she depends

12 entirely on SSI for her livelihood.

13

55. SSA continues to deny Ms. Miles an equal opportunity to participate in

14 its programs by communicating with her only in standard print format.

15

MARVELENA QUESADA

16

56. Ms. Quesada receives SSDI benefits from SSA on the basis of

17 blindness. She began receiving SSDI benefits on or about 2004. Ms. Quesada

18 has received SSI benefits from SSA on the basis of blindness and financial need.

19 She began receiving SSI benefits on or about 1992. Ms. Quesada has been blind

20 from birth. With few exceptions, SSA has communicated with Ms. Quesada solely

21 in standard print format, which she cannot read. SSA has not informed Ms.

22 Quesada of her right to reasonable accommodation or inquired about her

23 preference for an accessible format for written communications.

24

57. Ms. Quesada has repeatedly requested SSA by telephone to

25 accommodate her disability by providing written communications in Braille, by

26 electronic mail or computer diskette. SSA refused her requests for communications

27 in an accessible format. Ms. Quesada has also requested information in accessible

28 format about the rules and procedures governing SSA benefits programs, including

14
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 16 of 38

1 SSI. Because she did not receive information about her individual benefits and

2 rules governing SSA benefits programs in accessible format, Ms. Quesada has

3 been unable to comply with program requirements.

4

58. In 2003, SSA suspended Ms. Quesada’s SSI benefits. In 2003, Ms.

5 Quesada received a written communication from SSA that she could not read. The

6 document established an appointment at an SSA office that Ms. Quesada was

7 required to attend and described documents that she was required to provide.

8 Because she could not read the document, Ms. Quesada did not provide the

9 requested documents or attend the appointment. Ms. Quesada called an SSA

10 claims representative and requested that all further communications be provided to

11 her in Braille because she is blind and cannot read documents written in standard

12 print format. Her request was refused by an SSA representative who seemed to

13 have no idea what Ms. Quesada meant by Braille communications.

14

59. Ms. Quesada suffered severe financial hardship for several months.

15 Without SSI benefits, Ms. Quesada could not buy basic necessities, including

16 groceries. Ms. Quesada borrowed money and purchased necessities on credit.

17 She accumulated a significant amount of debt that was difficult to repay. She made

18 arrangements through a credit counseling service to resolve her outstanding debt

19 problems.

20

60. SSA continues to deny Ms. Quesada an equal opportunity to

21 participate in its programs by communicating with her only in standard print format.

22

ARLENE DOHERTY

23

61. Ms. Doherty receives Social Security retirement insurance benefits on

24 the basis of age. On or about 1970, Ms. Doherty began receiving benefits on the

25 basis of blindness from a state benefits program that was replaced by SSI in 1974.

26 She received SSI on the basis of blindness and later began to receive Social

27 Security retirement insurance benefits on the basis of age when she turned 65.

28 With few exceptions, SSA has communicated with Ms. Doherty solely in standard

15
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 17 of 38

1 print format, which she cannot read. SSA has not informed Ms. Doherty of her right

2 to reasonable accommodation or inquired about her preference for an accessible

3 format for written communications.

4

62. Ms. Doherty has repeatedly requested SSA to accommodate her

5 disability by telephoning her to read written communications aloud to her. SSA

6 refused her requests for communications in accessible format. SSA failed to

7 accommodate Ms. Doherty and continued to send her communications in standard

8 print format only. As a result, Ms. Doherty has failed to meet deadlines and other

9 requirements established in written communications from SSA because she cannot

10 read them.

11

63. On occasion, one time per year for several years during the late

12 1990’s, SSA representatives contacted Ms. Doherty by telephone and read the

13 contents of written communications from SSA to her. Ms. Doherty has not received

14 any further telephone calls from an SSA representative.

15

64. Ms. Doherty has relied on sighted persons to read written

16 communications from SSA to her. Ms. Doherty must travel approximately an hour

17 to meet a sighted reader once a week and bring her mail for the week along with

18 her. Because she is blind, Ms. Doherty sometimes misplaces or leaves important

19 mail behind, the contents of which are not read aloud to her. On occasion, the

20 sighted reader on whom she relies, who is 84 years old, has missed their

21 appointments. In that circumstance, Ms. Doherty must wait two weeks or more

22 before she hears the contents of any written communications.

23

65. In 2003, Ms. Doherty received a series of standard print notices from

24 SSA that she could not read. The written notices stated that her SSI benefits were

25 suspended because she had resources in excess of the $2,000 allowable amount.

26 The written notices also stated that she was required to repay the SSI benefits she

27 received while she had excess resources. Because she could not read the written

28 notices from SSA, she did not comprehend them. She erroneously believed that

16
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 18 of 38

1 she was obligated to repay SSA beginning in 2004 and ending in 2020 and that she

2 was ineligible to receive SSI benefits until after she had fully repaid SSA in 2020.

3 In fact, she was immediately eligible to receive SSI again because she no longer

4 had excess resources. Ms. Doherty could not understand the content of the written

5 notices because she could not read them and was forced to rely on a sighted

6 reader.

7

66. As a result, Ms. Doherty has not received SSI for over a year and was

8 rendered destitute. Unable to survive on $371 a month in Social Security benefits,

9 she borrowed money from her family members to make ends meet. Eventually,

10 Ms. Doherty decided out of desperation to take out a “reverse mortgage” on her

11 home, thereby depleting the equity she had worked so hard to build up over the

12 years.

13

67. SSA continues to deny Ms. Doherty an equal opportunity to participate

14 in its programs by communicating with her only in standard print format.

15

ALICE MARJORIE DONOVAN

16

68. Ms. Donovan receives SSI benefits on the basis of blindness and

17 financial need. When she was a child, she began receiving benefits on the basis of

18 disability from a state benefits program that was replaced by SSI in 1974. Ms.

19 Donovan has been blind from birth. With few exceptions, SSA has communicated

20 with Ms. Donovan only in standard print format, which she cannot read. SSA has

21 not informed Ms. Donovan of her right to reasonable accommodation or inquired

22 about her preference for an accessible format for written communications.

23

69. Ms. Donovan has repeatedly requested SSA to accommodate her

24 disability by providing written notices in Braille, by electronic mail, or on a computer

25 diskette. SSA refused her repeated requests for communications in accessible

26 format. As a result, Ms. Donovan has failed to meet deadlines and other

27 requirements established in written communications from SSA and adverse actions

28 have been taken by SSA to suspend her SSI benefits.

17
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 19 of 38

1

70. In May and June 2003, SSA sent Ms. Donovan standard print notices

2 informing her that SSI payments would be changed because she had excess

3 resources. In June 2003 Ms. Donovan requested reconsideration, asking that her

4 SSI payments be reinstated, explaining the bases for the apparently excessive

5 balance in her bank account, and reiterating her request that SSA communicate

6 with her in accessible format.

7

71. In 2004, on two occasions, an SSA representative telephoned Ms.

8 Donovan and offered to read the contents of a standard print communication that

9 SSA had sent to her by mail. Ms. Donovan came to rely on telephone calls from

10 SSA to inform her of communications about her benefits, but SSA still sent written

11 communications in standard print format without also providing her a telephone call.

12 Accordingly, Ms. Donovan is forced to rely on a sighted reader to ensure that she

13 does not miss written communications from SSA about her benefits.

14

72. In September of 2004, Ms. Donovan received a standard print notice

15 that SSA proposed to suspend her SSI benefits effective October 1, 2004 because

16 she had excess resources. A sighted reader, available to Ms. Donovan on an

17 irregular basis, read her the contents of the letter. But Ms. Donovan could not

18 understand why SSA was suspending her SSI benefits because she could not read

19 the letter for herself. Ms. Donovan also did not have access to information about

20 the rules and requirements governing SSI benefits. Ms. Donovan could not recall

21 specific details contained in the notice because she did not have an accessible

22 copy to which she could refer.

23

73. In September of 2004, a sighted reader wrote a letter to SSA on Ms.

24 Donovan’s behalf requesting reconsideration and that her SSI benefits continue

25 until her request was resolved. On September 22, 2004, a sighted reader wrote

26 another letter to SSA on her behalf requesting “Braille materials and Braille copies

27 of regulations” and “copies of SSA regulations which may clarify what a resource is,

28 how much an individual can have in resources, and regulations regarding Blindness

18
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 20 of 38

1 Related Work Expenses and what can be counted against work income.” SSA has

2 not responded to her request for accessible program information and materials. In

3 addition, because SSA refused to communicate with her in an accessible format,

4 Ms. Donovan requested that SSA provide her information about how to file an

5 administrative discrimination complaint with SSA. SSA also failed to respond to

6 that request, and, as a result, Ms. Donovan has been unable to file an

7 administrative complaint.

8

74. SSA sent more standard print letters to Ms. Donovan in September,

9 October and November of 2004, demanding repayment of thousands of dollars in

10 SSI benefits. On September 27, 2004, SSA sent Ms. Donovan a letter stating that

11 her SSI benefits would be suspended effective November 2004. In November of

12 2004, checks written against Ms. Donovan’s account were returned for insufficient

13 funds. Ms. Donovan contacted her bank to inquire as to why her account had

14 insufficient funds and learned that SSA had terminated her SSI benefits, in spite of

15 her requests for reconsideration and continuation of her benefits until her request

16 was resolved. She telephoned a local SSA office, and an SSA representative

17 informed her that her SSI benefits had been suspended in October of 2004.

18

75. Ms. Donovan suffered financial hardship for two months. Without SSI

19 benefits, Ms. Donovan had difficulty meeting her expenses. In December of 2004,

20 Ms. Donovan contacted an SSA representative who finally arranged to restore her

21 SSI benefits until resolution of her request for reconsideration, including the months

22 during which her benefits were suspended.

23

76. In June 2005, SSA sent a standard print letter reducing Ms. Donovan’s

24 SSI benefits again, effective July 1, 2005. On several occasions, Ms. Donovan

25 called SSA to request an explanation because she could not read the notice or

26 understand it merely by having it read aloud. She also wrote to SSA, with the help

27 of a sighted reader, asking that no amounts be withheld from her SSI payments

28 while she prepared her response and requesting documents in accessible format,

19
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 21 of 38

1 such as Braille, to accommodate her blindness. To date, she has received no

2 response to these requests.

3

77. An SSA representative telephoned Ms. Donovan on September 13,

4 2005 to read her a letter, dated that same day, in response to her reconsideration

5 request filed June 18, 2003 — more than two years earlier. As she requested

6 during the September 13, 2005 telephone call, SSA sent Ms. Donovan an

7 electronic copy of that letter by e-mail on September 14, 2005. Noting that

8 reconsideration had been filed on June 18, 2003, the letter stated that based on

9 information Ms. Donovan provided on November 29, 2004 SSA had determined

10 that the total amount of overpayment of SSI had been recalculated and decreased.

11 Ms. Donovan responded electronically by e-mail dated October 15, 2005

12 requesting an appeal for all alleged overpayments of SSI benefits to her. She also

13 acknowledged that for the first time, after about seven years of requests, SSA had

14 communicated with her via e-mail, a format that is accessible to her as a blind

15 person.

16

78. SSA continues to deny Ms. Donovan an equal opportunity to

17 participate in its programs by communicating with her until September 14, 2005

18 only in standard print format, which she cannot read. Even now that she has

19 received several e-mail communications from SSA, based on her years of dealing

20 with SSA and statements made to her by SSA representatives that certain

21 information cannot be provided by e-mail, Ms. Donovan cannot feel certain that

22 SSA will consistently communicate with her in a format that is accessible to her.

23 SSA has not provided Ms. Donovan any assurances that it will continue to provide

24 notices to her in an accessible format.

25

BILLIE JEAN KEITH

26

79. Ms. Keith receives Social Security retirement insurance benefits on the

27 basis of age. Ms. Keith has been visually impaired since the age of nine and can

28 read large print only. Ms. Keith uses adaptive technology that enlarges print for

20
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 22 of 38

1 viewing on a computer screen or television monitor but the screen allows for a

2 limited amount of text to appear at any given time. Ms. Keith prefers to receive

3 materials in large print so that she can see and review more text at once and not be

4 limited to a computer for reading. In 1982, Ms. Keith began receiving SSDI on the

5 basis of blindness. SSA has communicated with Ms. Keith solely in standard print

6 format, including a notice in 2005 regarding the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug

7 Program. In January 2006, Ms. Keith received from SSA a 10-page form in

8 standard print format, asking for information about her work activity for the past

9 eight years. SSA has not informed Ms. Keith of her right to reasonable

10 accommodation or inquired about her preference for an accessible format for

11 standard print communications. In addition, no one from SSA has ever contacted

12 Ms. Keith by telephone and offered to read her anything.

13

80. Ms. Keith has repeatedly requested SSA to accommodate her

14 disability by providing communications in large print format. SSA refused her

15 request for communications in an accessible format that she can read.

16

81. In 1994, pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 85.61, Ms. Keith filed an

17 administrative complaint against SSA with the Department of Health and Human

18 Services. Her complaint alleged that SSA discriminated against her on the basis of

19 her disability by refusing to provide her with written communications in large print.

20 In September of 1997, SSA sent a standard print communication to Ms. Keith

21 stating that SSA had not discriminated against Ms. Keith by failing to provide

22 written communications in large print. Ms. Keith could not read the “no

23 discrimination” letter because it was not provided in large print. Ms. Keith is unable

24 to rely on her husband to read standard print documents to her because he is also

25 blind.

26

82. Beginning in 2000, SSA annually sends Ms. Keith a standard print

27 letter stating the amount of Social Security retirement insurance benefits she will

28 receive. Although Ms. Keith believed her benefit should have increased, she could

21
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 23 of 38

1 not gather enough information to challenge the determination of her benefits

2 because she was unable to read the standard print letter. In addition, the letter had

3 perforated edges that must be torn carefully and according to instructions on the

4 letter to avoid tearing the text. Because she is visually impaired, Ms. Keith could

5 not properly open the letter and tore the text of the letter. As a result, even with her

6 adaptive technology that enlarges standard print text, she could not read the letter

7 and gather sufficient information to challenge SSA’s determination.

8

83. SSA continues to deny Ms. Keith an equal opportunity to participate in

9 its programs by communicating with her only in standard print format.

10

GEORGE P. SMITH

11

84. Mr. Smith receives SSI and SSDI on the basis of blindness. He first

12 qualified for benefits under California’s program of Aid to the Aged, Blind and

13 Disabled (AABD) program when he was a child and was grand-fathered in to SSI

14 when the SSI program began in 1974. Ever since then, with the exception of

15 telephone calls to read annual COLA notices to Mr. Smith, SSA has communicated

16 with Mr. Smith solely in standard print format, which he cannot read. SSA has not

17 informed Mr. Smith of his right to reasonable accommodation or inquired about his

18 preference for an accessible format for standard print communications, including

19 communications regarding the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program or the

20 Low Income Subsidy.

21

85. Mr. Smith has repeatedly requested the SSA to provide him with SSI

22 benefits publications in Braille. He does not use a computer and has no means of

23 gaining access to the Internet or the SSA public website. Over the course of more

24 than one year, Mr. Smith repeatedly telephoned the SSA 800 number to request

25 publications about SSI benefits. Until very recently, each time he was informed that

26 no publications about SSI benefits were available in accessible format. In addition,

27 he attempted to use the automated prompt system on the SSA 800 number to

28

22
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 24 of 38

1 order publications in accessible format, but the system terminated the phone call

2 instead of permitting him to order the publications.

3

86. Not until May of 2005 did a sighted person inform Mr. Smith about the

4 SSA Braille Services Team. He was then able to contact them directly to request

5 SSI benefits publications in Braille. On May 23, 2005, Mr. Smith finally received

6 two volumes purporting to explain the SSI program from the SSA Braille Services

7 Team. He also received another volume listing other publications the SSA provides

8 in Braille.

9

87. SSA failed to accommodate Mr. Smith by continuing to issue written

10 communications in standard print only, by refusing to inquire about his preference

11 to receive written communications in Braille, by refusing to inform him about the

12 SSA’s Braille Services Team and otherwise failing to offer and provide him with

13 SSA benefits publications in Braille. While Mr. Smith has secured volunteer

14 assistance from a sighted person to read notices to him, he prefers independent

15 access to communications from SSA and feels insecure about how long he will

16 continue to have reliable help, because it is only a voluntary service from a private

17 organization.

18

88. SSA has denied Mr. Smith an equal opportunity to participate in its

19 programs by issuing written communications to him only in standard print format

20 and by failing to respond to his request for SSA benefits publications in Braille in a

21 prompt and effective manner.

22

DOROTHY JACKSON

23

89. Mrs. Jackson receives Social Security retirement insurance benefits on

24 the basis of age. Her husband Melvin Jackson, for whom she was representative

25 payee, worked as a self-employed painter and received a small spousal Social

26 Security retirement insurance benefit based on age and Mrs. Jackson’s earnings.

27 He died in September 2007. Since 2004, the Jacksons also received SSI benefits.

28

23
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 25 of 38

1

90. Mrs. Jackson was diagnosed with macular degeneration in 2001 and is

2 completely blind in the left eye and has limited vision in the right eye. Her doctor

3 tells her that in time she can expect to lose even this limited vision. However, at

4 present, she is able to read written material, but only if it is in large print format. In

5 addition to macular degeneration, she suffers from emphysema, requires oxygen

6 24 hours a day and has high blood pressure. She needs to fill four (4) regular

7 prescriptions.

8

91. With daytime assistance from home care workers provided under

9 California’s In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program, Mrs. Jackson had

10 provided care for her husband and had served as his representative payee since

11 he was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease around the same time as she was

12 diagnosed with macular degeneration. Mr. Jackson also had Type 2 diabetes, had

13 swelling of the legs, used a walker, required assistance to stand up and was

14 subject to falls. He also had prostate cancer, high blood pressure and poor

15 hearing. In 2001 he had surgery for water on the brain. He had nine (9) regular

16 prescriptions to deal with his various health conditions.

17

92. During her time as representative payee and continuing to this day,

18 SSA has communicated with Mrs. Jackson solely in standard print format, which

19 she cannot read. Even though the SSP portion of her SSI grant was awarded on

20 the basis of blindness, SSA has not informed Mrs. Jackson of her right to

21 reasonable accommodation or inquired about her preference for an accessible

22 format for written communications, including notices with respect to benefit

23 changes. She has requested that SSA send her notices regarding her benefits

24 and regarding those of her husband, when she received those, in large print format,

25 but staff at the local SSA district office have told her that this cannot be done. They

26 told her to take the notices to neighbors and have them read them for her. Mrs.

27 Jackson responded that she did not want neighbors to see her private information.

28

24
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 26 of 38

1 In addition, when he was alive, her husband was not able to read because of

2 severe dementia.

3

93. Every year SSA required Mrs. Jackson to complete and return a

4 representative payee accounting form. Mrs. Jackson takes care of all family

5 finances and knows all the information required on the form, but could not see the

6 form well enough to know where to write the information. As a result, she had to

7 seek assistance and was thus required to divulge private family financial

8 information to third parties.

9

94. Mrs. Jackson receives her bank statements in large print format and

10 therefore is able to reconcile her bank account on a monthly basis. As a result, the

11 only effective notice she gets of changes in the amount of Social Security

12 retirement or SSI benefits is in the form of the bank statement she receives the

13 month after the change goes into effect, by which time the time to appeal may well

14 have expired. The telephone company also readily agreed to provide her

15 telephone bill in large print format.

16

95. Recently, SSA sent Mrs. Jackson a standard print notice stating that

17 her husband had been overpaid and that 44 dollars per month would be deducted

18 from her benefit for several months until the overpayment is fully recovered.

19 Unable to read communications she receives from SSA, she could not identify any

20 alleged overpayments before the institution of these deductions. Mrs. Jackson was

21 only able to discover that deductions were being made to her account when several

22 months after the overpayment was made she received the letter in question and

23 had a neighbor read it to her. This neighbor’s assistance has not always been

24 available to her, and in relying on her aid, again, Mrs. Jackson was made to reveal

25 confidential financial information.

26

96. SSA continues to deny Mrs. Jackson an equal opportunity to

27 participate in its programs by communicating with her only in standard print format.

28

25
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 27 of 38

1

Mrs. Jackson currently resides in North Hollywood, CA, but plans to move

2 to Tennessee later this month to live with her daughter.

3

MARY ANN ALEXANDER

4

97. Ms. Alexander resides in East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania and has

5 received SSDI benefits on the basis of blindness since 1991. Previously, she

6 received SSI benefits on the basis of blindness. Additionally, Ms. Alexander has

7 served as the representative payee for both her daughters, Kaitlyn Boullosa and

8 Julianne Boullosa. Kaitlyn received auxiliary benefits under her father’s SSDI

9 benefits until July 2006 when she turned 18. Julianne, who was born on April 23,

10 1991, receives auxiliary benefits under Ms. Alexander’s SSDI benefits, and will

11 continue to receive them until she graduates from high school in June 2009.

12

98. With regard to both her own benefits and her status as representative

13 payee for her daughters, SSA has exclusively communicated with Ms. Alexander

14 through standard print format. By mail and by telephone, she has repeatedly

15 requested that SSA provide her with reasonable accommodations. However, SSA

16 has ignored these requests, and continues to issue her standard print notices in 12-

17 point font.

18

99. Ms. Alexander was diagnosed at birth with a condition known as

19 Retinitis Pigmentosa, a degenerative eye disease that affects the photoreceptor

20 cells in the retina. There is no treatment for it.

21

100. On at least two occasions, after SSA mailed standard print notices to

22 Ms. Alexander, which she could not read, SSA threatened to terminate or limit her

23 benefits. Although on one occasion an SSA representative at Ms. Alexander’s local

24 office offered to read notices to her over the telephone, SSA did not follow up on

25 this promise. Ms. Alexander has never been informed about the accommodations

26 to which she is entitled, and has never received telephone notices, Braille notices,

27 or any sort of electronic communication from SSA.

28

26
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 28 of 38

1

101. In 2002, Ms. Alexander received one or more notices regarding an

2 alleged overpayment under her daughter Julianne’s auxiliary benefits. She could

3 not read them and does not like to have other people read any communications

4 from the SSA to her because the notices contain private information. With the help

5 of her employer, Christie Bower, an attorney practicing in Ms. Alexander’s area,

6 Ms. Alexander was able to receive an extension of the reconsideration period for

7 the alleged overpayment. Ms. Bower telephoned the local Stroudsburg office of the

8 SSA and said that because her client is blind she was not able to read the initial

9 notices that were sent to her. SSA agreed to extend the reconsideration period,

10 and eventually determined that there had been no overpayment. Although Ms.

11 Alexander’s and her daughter’s benefits were not interrupted, she suffered

12 emotional distress from the possibility that they could have been.

13

102. Following the 2002 incident, SSA continued to mail notices to Ms.

14 Alexander exclusively in standard print form. In 2005, she received a notice from

15 the SSA saying that her benefits were going to be reduced because her monthly

16 earnings exceeded the maximum allowance. Although prior to receiving this notice,

17 Ms. Alexander had mailed a letter to the SSA stating that her increased impairment

18 related work expenses in the form of transportation costs offset the increase in her

19 monthly income, she never heard back. Ms. Bower sent another letter to the SSA

20 on Ms. Alexander’s behalf, describing her transportation costs as well as the fact

21 that Ms. Alexander is blind and could not read the notices sent to her. As a result,

22 the SSA did not reduce Ms. Alexander’s benefits.

23

103. Although neither Ms. Alexander’s nor her daughter’s benefits have

24 been interrupted, because of these incidents she fears that they may be in the

25 future. She continues to receive notices and representative payee forms in

26 standard print format in the mail. As a result of the 2005 incident, Ms. Alexander

27 has had Ms. Bower write on each representative payee form that Ms. Alexander is

28 blind and requires communications from the SSA in alternate forms. She has never

27
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 29 of 38

1 received such accommodations and the SSA has never responded to these

2 requests.

3

104. In 2006, Ms. Alexander missed a deadline for returning a

4 representative payee form. She telephoned her local SSA office and explained that

5 she is blind and cannot read the notices sent to her. The agent with whom she

6 spoke said that she was willing to call Ms. Alexander in the future and read notices

7 to her. However, neither this agent nor anyone at SSA has ever telephoned Ms.

8 Alexander.

9

105. Ms. Alexander continues to have Ms. Bower write on her

10 representative payee forms that she requires accommodations, like the Brailled

11 statements she receives from her telephone service provider, but SSA still

12 communicates with her only through standard print form. As a result Ms. Alexander

13 is denied an opportunity to participate in SSA programs without the fear that her

14 benefits may one day be reduced or terminated for failure to meet a deadline.

15

LAURA M. RUSSELL

16

106. Mrs. Russell resides in Los Angeles, California and receives SSDI

17 auxiliary benefits on her husband’s account on the basis of blindness and has

18 received SSI benefits since the beginning of the SSI program. She and her

19 husband, Rick Russell, who is also blind, are currently separated. Her son Kevin

20 Michael Russell, for whom she is representative payee, is 33 years old and

21 receives Social Security auxiliary benefits on his father’s account based on

22 developmental disability. Kevin is employed part time at a local restaurant.

23

107. Mrs. Russell has been blind since birth. She can see shadows, but

24 cannot read written material. If provided with a computer diskette or CD-ROM, she

25 can make use of a computer software program to read printed materials.

26 Otherwise, Mrs. Russell is forced to take written material to a volunteer sighted

27 reader. Until three years ago, Mrs. Russell did not have a regular sighted reader to

28 assist her. Currently, Mrs. Russell must travel once a week to meet a sighted

28
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 30 of 38

1 reader, and must bring her mail for the week along with her, to hear the contents of

2 any written communications. However, the sighted reader on whom she relies

3 occasionally has to miss their appointments when the reader has to travel out of

4 town. In the reader’s absence, Mrs. Russell is unable to ascertain the contents of

5 her mail.

6

108. Mrs. Russell provides care for her son and has served as his

7 representative payee since he was a child. Kevin does not understand SSA rules

8 and does not know the value of money. As representative payee, Mrs. Russell

9 must manage his finances and must send in monthly reports of his earnings and

10 any impairment related work expenses to SSA in order that the amount of his

11 monthly benefits can be adjusted to reflect any changes in countable income.

12 Since there are frequent delays in SSA’s processing of the earnings reports,

13 overpayments are commonplace. Every time there is an overpayment SSA sends

14 out a notice to reduce future benefits. If she disagrees with an SSI overpayment

15 determination and wishes to appeal, the appeal must be filed within 10 days of

16 receipt of the notice in order for benefits to be continued pending the first level of

17 appeal. Sometimes it is not possible for her to have someone read the notice to

18 her within that 10 day period. Mrs. Russell must pay his bills and respond to all

19 communications from SSA seeking information updates and alleging

20 overpayments.

21

109. SSA has communicated with Mrs. Russell solely in standard print

22 format, which she cannot read. SSA has never informed Mrs. Russell of her right

23 to reasonable accommodation or inquired about her preference for an accessible

24 format for written communications, including notices with respect to benefit

25 changes. SSA has never offered to read notices to Mrs. Russell over the

26 telephone, nor told her this option is even available. Since Mrs. Russell cannot

27 read SSA notices, she is always concerned that she may not be aware of or

28 understand the notices she receives and is fearful of making a mistake that will lead

29
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 31 of 38

1 SSA to cut off her son’s benefits. Mrs. Russell is constantly missing SSA deadlines

2 to respond as a result of not being provided accessible notices and frequently has

3 been forced to re-pay past benefits. She has asked SSA to provide her with either

4 telephone calls or audio tapes of notices. She has not received either form of

5 notice.

6

110. Every year SSA requires Mrs. Russell to complete and return a

7 representative payee accounting form. Mrs. Russell takes care of all her son’s

8 finances and knows all the information required on the form, but cannot see the

9 form well enough to know where to write the information. As a result, she must

10 seek assistance and is thus required to divulge private family financial information

11 to third parties.

12

111. SSA continues to deny Mrs. Russell an equal opportunity to participate

13 in its programs by communicating with her only in standard print format.

14

AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND

15

112. ACB is a national membership organization whose members are

16 primarily blind and visually impaired persons. ACB brings this action on behalf of

17 its members. Its members include thousands of current beneficiaries and

18 recipients of SSI, SSDI, and Social Security retirement insurance benefits. ACB’s

19 mission is to advocate for the implementation and enforcement of civil rights

20 protections for its blind and visually impaired members and all blind and visually

21 impaired persons; to elevate the social, economic and cultural level of blind

22 persons; and to assist blind persons develop their abilities and to assume a

23 responsible place in the community. ACB publishes a periodical publication in

24 Braille, large print, audiotape, and computer disk; it holds conferences and

25 seminars for blind and visually impaired persons; it provides employment

26 information and resources to blind and visually impaired persons; and it consults

27 with public and private organizations on behalf of blind and visually impaired

28 persons. Defendant’s unlawful conduct interferes with ACB’s mission of elevating

30
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 32 of 38

1 the status of blind persons and assisting them with developing and assuming a

2 responsible place in the community and causes ACB to divert its resources to

3 remedy injuries suffered by its members as a result of Defendant’s unlawful

4 conduct.

5

113. With few exceptions, SSA has only communicated with blind and

6 visually impaired members of ACB in standard print format. SSA has not informed

7 blind and visually impaired members of ACB of their right to reasonable

8 accommodations of their disabilities. Blind and visually impaired members of ACB

9 cannot comply with deadlines and requirements established in standard print

10 notices from SSA, which they cannot read. As a result, they have suffered

11 reduction and termination of their benefits and related personal and financial

12 hardships.

13

114. Plaintiffs Marvelena Quesada, Billie Jean Keith, Alice Marjorie

14 Donovan, Arlene Doherty, Mary Ann Alexander and Laura M. Russell are members

15 of ACB.

16

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF SECTION 504 OF THE

REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973

17

18

115. Paragraphs 1-114 are each re-alleged and incorporated herein as if

19 fully set forth herein.

20

116. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (as amended) (“Section

21 504”) provides that:

22

No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of his or her

23

disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied

the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any

24

program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance

25

or activity conducted by any Executive agency[.]”

26 29 U.S.C. § 794 (as amended).

27

117. Each of the Plaintiffs and class members is an “individual with a

28 disability” as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 705(20) because each has a visual impairment

31
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 33 of 38

1 that substantially limits one or more of their major life activities, including the major

2 life activity of seeing.

3

118. As a result of being “individual[s] with a disability” as defined in 29

4 U.S.C. § 705(20), each of the named Plaintiffs and class members is entitled to

5 reasonable accommodations in the form of auxiliary aids and services that provide

6 them equal access to the programs SSA administers.

7

119. Defendants are bound by regulations of the United States Department

8 of Health and Human Services promulgated under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 9 Act, 45 C.F.R. § 85.1 et seq.

10

120. These regulations require SSA to provide “auxiliary aids” to Plaintiffs,

11 which are “services or devices that enable persons with impaired sensory, manual,

12 or speaking skills to have an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the

13 benefits of, programs or activities” that SSA conducts. As defined by the

14 regulations themselves, auxiliary aids “useful for persons with impaired vision

15 include readers, Brailled materials, audio recordings, and other similar services and 16 devices.” Id. The regulations also require SSA to “take appropriate steps to ensure

17 effective communication” and “furnish appropriate auxiliary aids where necessary to

18 afford an individual with handicaps an equal opportunity” to participate in its 19 programs. Id. In addition, SSA must “give primary consideration to the requests of

20 the individual with handicaps” in determining the type of auxiliary aid it must

21 provide. 45 C.F.R. § 85.51(a)(1).

22

121. As alleged herein, Defendants have and continue to discriminate

23 unlawfully against the named Plaintiffs and the class members by failing to

24 communicate with Plaintiffs and the class members in an accessible format. By

25 refusing to communicate in a format that is accessible to blind persons, Defendants

26 have created and continue to create a significant and unnecessary obstacle to

27 Plaintiffs’ and the class members’ participation in SSA programs. Plaintiffs and the

28 class members cannot comprehend or use critical information from SSA in a

32
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 34 of 38

1 manner equal to that of sighted persons. Plaintiffs and the class members are

2 forced to rely on the assistance of sighted persons to communicate the contents of

3 standard print communications to them. Such sighted assistance is often

4 unavailable, expensive, unreliable, inconsistent, untimely, or ineffective. In

5 particular, relying on sighted assistance also requires blind persons to submit to an

6 invasion of privacy; they must disclose highly sensitive information — including

7 their Social Security numbers and private financial information — to sighted

8 persons simply to gain access to their own, private Social Security benefits

9 information. As a result, Plaintiffs who use sighted assistance are exposed to a

10 needless risk of identity theft.

11

122. Providing individual benefits and program information in formats

12 accessible to Plaintiffs and the class members would not fundamentally alter SSA

13 programs or create an undue administrative or cost burden. Numerous

14 governmental agencies and large commercial entities already provide individual

15 account and benefits information to blind and visually impaired persons in similar

16 accessible formats.

17

123. Defendants’ conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous violation

18 of the law. Unless restrained from doing so, Defendants will continue to so violate

19 the law. Defendants’ conduct has caused and will continue to cause Plaintiffs

20 immediate and irreparable injury. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law for the

21 injuries they suffer and will continue to suffer. Thus, Plaintiffs are entitled to

22 injunctive relief.

23

24 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
25

26

124. Paragraphs 1-123 are each re-alleged and incorporated as if fully set

27 forth herein.

28

33
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 35 of 38

1

125. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits Defendants

2 from depriving Plaintiffs and the class members of a protected property interest

3 without adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. Plaintiffs and the class

4 members have a protected property interest in receiving SSA benefits.

5

126. Defendants have failed and continue to fail to provide Plaintiffs and the

6 class members information in accessible formats about their individual benefits,

7 SSA benefits publication materials, and the rules governing SSA benefits

8 programs. As a result, Plaintiffs and the class members are denied adequate

9 notice and an opportunity to be heard with respect to suspensions, terminations,

10 and other actions affecting their SSA benefits. Defendants’ conduct has deprived

11 and continues to deprive Plaintiffs and the class members of SSA benefits to which

12 they are entitled.

13

127. As described above, Defendants have a policy of offering a telephone

14 call to Plaintiffs to read the content of only certain kinds of standard print notices,

15 such as of proposed action with respect to Plaintiffs’ and the class members

16 benefits, and then taking adverse action with respect to Plaintiffs’ SSA benefits

17 regardless of whether Plaintiffs and the class members actually receive the

18 telephone call. This policy denies Plaintiffs and the class members notice and an

19 opportunity to be heard with respect to determinations and actions affecting their

20 SSA benefits. As a result, Defendants’ conduct has deprived and continues to

21 deprive Plaintiffs and the class members of SSA benefits to which they are entitled,

22 without due process of law.

23

24

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: DECLARATORY RELIEF

25

128. Paragraphs 1-127 are each re-alleged and incorporated as if fully set

26 forth herein.

27

129. Defendants have and continue to fail to provide Plaintiffs and the class

28 members information in accessible formats about their individual benefits, SSA

34
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 36 of 38

1 benefits publication materials, and the rules governing SSA benefits programs in

2 violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and continues to suspend or terminate

3 the benefits of Plaintiffs and the class members without meaningful notice in

4 violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States

5 Constitution.

6

130. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate in order that the

7 parties know their rights and duties and act accordingly.

8

9

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

10

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court:

11

1. Certify at an appropriate time that this suit is properly maintainable as

12 a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and/or (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil

13 Procedure;

14

2. Declare that Defendants’ failure to offer SSA benefits information in

15 accessible formats to blind and visually impaired applicants, beneficiaries,

16 recipients, and representative payees of SSA benefits programs violates section

17 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth

18 Amendment;

19

3. Declare that Defendants have a duty to provide equal and meaningful

20 access to all SSA benefits information (including information about individual

21 benefits and SSA publications about its programs and rules) in formats that are

22 accessible to blind and visually impaired persons, including Braille, large print,

23 electronic mail, computer disks, and audio tape recordings;

24

4. Grant a permanent injunction, requiring Defendants, their successors

25 in office, agents, assigns, representatives, employees and all persons acting in

26 concert therewith, including state agencies responsible for disability determinations,

27 to provide equal and meaningful access to all SSA benefits information (including

28 information about individual benefits and SSA publications about its programs and

35
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 37 of 38

1 rules) in appropriately secure formats that are accessible to blind and visually

2 impaired persons, including Braille, large print, electronic mail, computer disks, and

3 audio tape recordings;

4

5. For costs of the suit herein;

5

6. For reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

6

7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

7

8 Dated: June 18, 2008

Respectfully submitted,

9

HELLER EHRMAN LLP

10

DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND

11

DEFENSE FUND

12

By ________/s/ Wondie Russell__________

13

WONDIE RUSSELL

Attorneys For Plaintiffs

14 Additional Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs:
15 GERALD A. MCINTYRE (Bar No. 181746)

16 JEANNE FINBERG (Bar No. 88333) NATIONAL SENIOR CITIZENS LAW CENTER

17 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2860

18

Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: +1.213.639.0930

19 Facsimile: +1.213.639.0934

gmcintyre@nsclc.org 20 KATHLEEN L. WILDE (Oregon Bar No. 97105) (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

21 OREGON ADVOCACY CENTER

620 SW Fifth Avenue, Fifth Floor 22 Portland, OR 97204

23 Telephone: +1.503.243.2081

Facsimile: +1.503.243.1738 24 kwilde@oradvocacy.org

25

26

27

28

36
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 38 of 38

1

CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS

2

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-16, the undersigned certifies that as of this date, 3

other than the named parties, there is no such interest to report. 4

June 18, 2008 5

HELLER EHRMAN LLP

6

DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND

DEFENSE FUND

7

8

By _______/s/ Wondie Russell___________ WONDIE RUSSELL

9

Attorneys For Plaintiffs

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

37
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF C 05-4696 MJJ

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-2 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT 1
TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-2 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 2 of 6

Social Security Administration

Supplemental Security Income

Notice of Planned Action

Date: September 15, 2004

Claim l'fumber:

967
ALICE MAJORIE DONOVAN

:' , , .

·Typ~ of Eligibility· Individual:"Blind

We are writing to tell you abc;)Ut chang~s in your Suppl~mental, ,Se~ulity

' Incomepayments. The followmg chart shows the S8I money dll~ you for the

months we changed. As you can see from the chart, we are changing your

payments for both past and future months. The restof this leUer wi1I.~ell you

more about this change;

,

' " ".' .

Your Paymen~s Will Be Ch~gedAs Follows:

From

Through

Amount Due Each Mollth

March 1, 2003

May 31, 2093

$<>.,.00

October 1, 2003

October 31, 2003

$O~OO

March 1~ 2004

May ,31, 2004

$O.q()

August 1, 2004

C~ntinuing

$0.00

We will stop your payments as shown above beginning October ~

Why Your Payments Changed

• We frnd that you have resources worth more than $2,000.00 for March 2003 through May 2003, $2,()()().00 for October 2003,$2,000.00 for March 2004 throughM'ay 2004 and $2,000.00 for. August 2004 on.

For you to continue to receive. SS1 payments, the resources. that you

own cannot be. worth more than $2,000.00 for March 2003 through '

May 2003, $2,000.00 for October 2003, $2,000.00 for March 2004 through

May 2004 and $2,090.00 fo:r Augus-t 2004 .o'n. We ':call this atnount the

limit on r~sources.

'. .. ," .

SSA·Ul55

See Next Page EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-2 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 3 of 6

Q9/15/2004

Page 2 of 5

Resources are the things that you own such as cash, stocks, bank.
accounts, certain types of life insurance, buildings, and land on which you do not live. We do not include as resources the home in which you live, one car used for necessary activities, a:nd some other things.

• Although your resources would prevent .you from receiving payments, you may still be able to receive SS! while ·you are trying 1:0 sell your

resources if all of the following are true.

.

The value of cash, includin~ saving!J, and other things YO\lhave that can easily be changed mto cash is less than $1,692.00. .

Y?l.l hav.e other things that cannot e~i!Y be cha.t:iged iIlto .cash and these thin~ make your resources too high. Examples of such . things are a building or land on which you do not live. .

You will sign a written· agreement which allows youto receiv~ SSI

payments while you are.trying to sell th~ property tpat causes, . your res()urces.tp 4e.. over Jhe limit. '..".- ....,'. . . '. . '..

- .'

•

....

• . I ."

. •

" '-.

You agree to repay any SSI 'payments which you recei;ve while

trying to sell the property.

.

.If you think all of these are true aboutJou, an~ you want to receive SS! payments, please contact the local SOCI SecurIty office. ..

Your SSI Is Based On These Facts

2004. • You had monthly income of $6,347.04 f~r Julie'

This amount does

not affect your Supplemental Security Income payment.

.

• You had monthly ·income which must be considered ,in flguring yoU!

eligibility as follows:

'

.' .

Your wag~s of $9;067.20 for July 2004.

• In fIgUring your payment, your income to meet work expenses was· disregarded as follows- $4,395.03 for July 2004. . '. .

Information ·About MecUcaid

For information about any change in your Medicaid eligibility caused by this. action, you should get in touch with the county welfare d~partment. . ' .
You Can Review The lnfortnation in y~Ur Ca~e

The decisions in this letter are based on the law. You have a right to reView

and get copies of the information in our records that we used to make the .

decislOns explained in this letter. You also have a right to review and copy .

the laws, regulations and policy statements used in deciding your case. To do

so, please contact us. Our telephone number and address are shown under the

heading "If You Have Any QUestions." :.. '.'

.

.

SSA·L8155

.

. .

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-2 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 4 of 6

09/15/2004

Page 3 of 5

Things To Remember

• We may be. in touch with you later about any payments we previously made.

• This determination repl~ces all previous determinations for the above periods.

• If you think you may be eligible for SSI again, please contact us. If

you qo not contact us before August 2005, you may have to flle a new

application. If you have to fIle a new application, the earliest ,month

for which we can pay you is the month atl~r .you flle. '.

.

If You Disagree With The. D~ision

If you disagree with the decision, you have the right to appeal. We will review your case and consider any new facts you 1)ave. .

• You

have 60 days '.

to

ask

for

a, n

appeal.

• The 60 days start the day after you get this letter. We assume you got this letter 5 days after the date on it unless you show us that you did

not .~t ;i~.witpil1 ~,he 5-day period

• . . • •-

'.- -

';0-

•

"

"

,-

• You must have .a good reason for waiting mo~e than 60 d~ys to ask for an appeal.

.To appeal, you must fIll out a form·called *Request for Reconsideration.*·.: The form number isSSA-561. To get this fonn, ~ontact one of our offices. We cap. help you fIll out the form.

Appeal In 10 Days To Keep Getting The Same Check

If you appeal within 10 days, you will continue to get the. same check amount until we decide your case.

• The 10 days start the day after you get this letter.

\ i
I i

• If you lose your app~~J, you might have to pay back some or all of this money.

II
I:

However, even if you appeal in 10 days, we may stop the check in

II

October 2004 as shown on page 1 if both of the following are true:

• Our new decision is the same as the one appealed, and

\/,

• We send or give you a letter with our new decision in time to stop the check.

SSA·LBl55

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-2
_ -. .. .. •..•.
09/15/2004

Filed 06/18/2008 Page 5 of 6 Page 4 of 5

How .To Appeal
There are three wars to appeal. You can pick the ~ you 'rant. If you m.eet
with Y! ill person, It may h2!R usTeCiae-;you:r ~
• Case Review. You hfl,ve a right to nwiew the fads in your fiIe~ You can give us more fads to add to your file. Then we'll decide ycrur case again. You won't meet with the person who decid~ your case.

• Infonnal Conference. You'll meet ..with the person who decides your caSe. . You can tell that person why 1...0u think youire tight. You c~ give us more ta<:ts t? help prove you re right. You can bring other pe0p-le. to pelp ex;p18.Jl1 yow: ~e. ..' _ . . ' . _. __.__ . __ '. _ . . -~~- ... .

•

Formal .Copference.
difference vi we can

This make

is a meeting people come

like an to help

ipnrfoovremyaol uc'orneferlr«ehntc.e.

The We

can make them bring important papers about your case, even if they

don't want to help you. You can question these people at your

meeting.

If You Want Help With Your Appeal

You can have a friend, lawyer or someone else help you. There are groi8ls

tTh1a1etre£!!~!!:eJ:lae\psoYlauwfymerds

! larIer or who 0 .not

~ve I2l:! free .legal services
c arge iitiIeSs you WiD your

iafpypeo~ul.guYa oiIuyr.

local Socia} Security office has a list of groups that can help you with your

~pe~.

.

If you get someone to help you, you should let us know. If you hire someone, . we muSt approve the fee before he or $he can colled it.

If You!blve Any Questions

For general. information f,\bout .sm, visit our website at www.s?ciaIsecurity.gov

on tlie Internet. There, you will also find the law and regulations about SSI

- eUglbftity mft13S1 payment "mnoutits. ..

.

--- -.

--

For general questions about SSI or specific questions aboUt your case, you

may ~aU us toll-free at 1-800-77Z-1213, or call your local Social Security office

at 650-519-4541. Our lines are busiest early in the week apd early in. the

month, so if your business can wait, it's best to call at other times. We can

answer most questions over the phone. You can also write or visit any Social

. Security office. The office that serves yotlr area is located at:

.

SOCIAL SECURITY
SUITE 101
800 SOUTH CLAREMONT ST
SAN MATEO CA 94402

SSA-L8155

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-2
-'..
09/15/2004

Filed 06/18/2008 Page 6 of 6 Page 5 of 5

If you do- c~ or visit an office, please have this letter with you. It will help

US answer your questions. Also, if you plan to visit an office, you may call

ahead to make an appointment. This Will help us .seIV"e you more quickly

when you anive at the office.

.

.

~;6.~
Linda S. McMahon
.Deputy Coinmissioner
for Operations

- - -- .. -.

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-3 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT 2
TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-3 Filed 06/18/2008

.

Social Security Administration

Supplemental Security Income

Important Information

.

Date: April 19, 2005

Claim Number:,

Page 2 of 6

ASS
MARYELENA C QUESADA

.Type of Payment· Individual-Blind

I

We are writing to tell you about changes in your Supplemental Security Income record. The rest of this letter will tell you more about this change.

Information About Your Payments

• As we told you before, we ar~ withhol~g part of your c~eck to get back money I()U were overpaId Startmg May 2005, we will start

withholding $89.40. Therefore, you will receive a check for $72.60 about

the fIrst day of the month starting in May 2005.

.

.

• The $89.40 we will withhold is 10 percent of your SSI money plus any other money we use in figuring your SS1. If you want ·us to withhold more or ·less, please call or viSIt your Social Security office.

You Can Review The Information in Your Case

The decisions in this letter are based on the law. You have a right to review

and. get copies of the information in our records that we used to make the .

decisIons explained in this letter. You also have a right to review and copy

the -laws, regulations and policy statements used in deciding your case. To do

so, please contact us. Our telep~one number and address are shown under the

heading "If You Have Any QuestIons."

-~

~gs To Remember

• This decision refers only to your claim for Supplemental Security

Income payments.

-

• Would you like to work? If so, y()u should know about special Supplemental Security Income (SSI) rules. These rules can help you

keep Medicaid and may help you keep getting some SSI even though

l()u are working. The enclosed fact sheet tens you more about special

SSI rules for people who work.

.

SSA-L8166

See Next Page

EXHIBIT 2

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-3 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 3 of 6

04}19/2005

Page 2 of 5

If You Disagree With The Decision

If you diSagree with the decision, you have the right to appeal. We will

review your case and consider any new facts you have.

.

• You have 60 days to ask for an appeal.

• The 60 days start the day after you get this letter. We .assume you got this letter 5 days after the date on it unless you show us that you did not get it within the 5-day period.

. xou must have a good reason for waiting more than 60 days to ask for .

an appeal.

.

• To appeal, you must fill out a form called "Request for

.

Reconsideration." The form number is SSA-561. To get this form,

contact one of our offices. We can help you fill out the form.

How To Appeal

TI:tere ar~ two way~ to appeal. You can pick the ~ you want. If you meet wIth :!:!! m person, It may help usdeCIcre your ~

• Case Review. You have a right to review the facts in your fIle. You can give us more facts to add to your file. Then we'll decide your case again. You won't meet with the person who decides your case. This is
tlie only kind of appeal you can have to appeal a .medical decision.

• Informal Conference. You'll meet with the person who decides your case. You can tell that person why lOU think you're right. You can . give us more facts to help prove you re right. You can bring other people to help explain your case.

If You Want Help With Your Appeal

You can have a friend; lawyer or someone else help·you. There are groiiSi .

that can he}pYfu fmd ! laraer or ~ve you free ~. services if you gullify.

Tnere are a so awyers who 0 not c arge unless you wm your appeil. Your

local Social Security office has a list of groups that can help you .with your

appeal.

.

.

If you get someone to help you, you should let us know. If you hire someone, we must approve the fee before he .or she can collect it.

If You Have Any Questions

For general information about SSI, visit our website at www.socialsecurity.gov on tlie Internet. There, you will also fmd the law and regulations about SSI eligibility and SSI payment amounts.

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-3 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 4 of 6

04119/2005

Page 3 of 5

For general questions about 881 or specific questions about your case, .you may call us toll-free at 1-800-772-1213, or call your local Social Security office at 650-994-2024. Our lines are busiest early in the week and early in the month, so if your business can wait, it's best to call at other times. We can answer most questions over the phone. You can also write or visit any Social Security office. The office that serves your area is located at:
SOCIAL SECURITY SUITE 201 ·355 GELLERT BLVD DALY CITY CA94015
If you do call or visit an office, please have this letter with you. It wIll help us answer your questions. Also, if you J?lan to visit an Office, you may call ahead to make an appointment. ThIS will help us serve you more quickly when you arrive at the office.
~;&.~
linda S. McMahon Deputy Commissioner
for Operations
Enclosure(s): SSI Rules That ·Help You Work

. -
i3 i-
1:1;;;
x ~i-
ij ~
:z: -
.;~o:.,:-;-;!
,. ii
~-= :CD! -
PI _
:oz: i_i :i! ~
i~ll =;;=
to !! : i
I;-Ii: ~ ii !!
i••i i• i
ii !!

SSA·L8166

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-3 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 5 of 6

04/19/2005

Page 4 of 5

.SSI Rules That Help You Work ·

We want to tell you about some special Supplemental Security Income (SSn rules that can help you while you are working or if you begin working. These rules can help you get or keep Medicaid and may help you keep getting s.ome
SSI even though you are working.

How Your SSI May Change If You Work

If you work full-time or part-time and make $65 or less each month, your SSI

will usually not change. As the money you earn from your job goes up; your

SSI will go down. However, if you have no other income (money or support),

you can earn up to $1,822.99 a month and still get at least $1 in SSI.

If You Stop Working or Start Earning Less

I

If you stop working~or start earning less, please let us know right away. We
can increase your SSI checks, or start your SSI and Medicaid again if they have stopped. You may not even have to file a new application.

Medicaid

If you get Medicaid, it wil.l usual~y continue as long as you get SSI. If your

SSI stops because you begm earnIng too much money, you can often keep

getting Medicaid as long as the following are true:

.

• You continue to be disabled or blind under our rules; and

• You can't pay your medical bills without Medicaid.

We Don't Count Some of Xour Earnings Used for Work Expenses

The earnings you use for some of your working expenses may not count as mcome. For example,.we sometimes don't count earnings used to fay for transportation to and from work. Also, we don't count the cost 0 special equipment that helps you to work.

A Plan Can Help

You may be able to keep more of your SSIif you develop a special plan to

support yourself. We call this a plan to achieve self-support (PASS). This

plan lets you set aside money for a certain ·amount of tune for a work goal.

Fo~ ~xample, y~u may set aside money to start a business, go to school, or get

traInIng for a Job.

.

.

We don't count what you set aside when we figure your SSI. This can help

keep you on SSI or help you get more SSI. A PASS may also help someone

you know qualify for SSI.

. .

SSA·L8166

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-3 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 6 of 6

·04}19/2005 •

Page 5 of 5

If You Need Help Finding a Job
We can ask someone who offers vocational rehabilitation services to help you rmd a job or give you training.
If You Want To Know More
If you want to know more about these rules. contact any Social Security office and ask to speak to someone about work incentives.

SSA-L8166

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-4 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 3
TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-4 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 2 of 3

•..,J'
Sochl Security Admjnjstration

Supplem.ental Security Income
SOCIAL SECURITY
355 GELLERT BLVD
SUITE 201 .

MARVELENAQUESAl)A

DALY CITY, CA 94015 Claim NUJiiber:i
r
January 7,2005 •
JOG

\

\

I

_ I

This is a very important letter about keeping your Supplemental Security Income (SSl) case active. Please read it carefuUy. Ifthere .is anything you do not . understand., please get in touch with: us-rigIit-aWaY; . .. ... . - .

What You Need To Do

We need mote information to decide if we can continue to pay you SSI. Therefore, it

is important that you do the following:

.

• Come to see us on January 12, 2005 and ask for Mrs.:

office address is:

.

• The

SOCIAL SECURITY SUITE 201 355 GELLERT BLVD DALY CITY, CA 94015
IrWe DOIl't Hear From You

We may stop your SSt uyou don'treepond to this request or contact us by January

12, 2005 to 'tell us why. H we stop your SSIt you could also lose any Medicaid you .

have nqw. . . . _.

.

Before we stop your SSI, we will send you another letter to expIam. our decision. The le~r Will also explain your right to appeal the decision and how to continue getting SSI d1l1inc the appeal.

• Bank statements: savings and checlting accounts, and any other bank statmnents .

• Unemployment compensation payment records .

See Next Page

EXHIBIT 3

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-4 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 3 of 3

Page 2 0(2

• Unemployment compensationpayment records.

Householder statement completed and signed by Irene Desha.
this When you call or come in, please have letter with you.

HYou llave Any Questions

Ifyou have any questions or need help, please call US at 650·994·2024: x 3014 and

ask for Mrs. '-

..

A~~e4la
Adria Leslie District Manager

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-5 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT 4
TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-5 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 2 of 5

e

Social Security Administration Supplemental Security Income

Notice of Planned Action

Dat~: AUg1!st 5; 2003' Clann Number. :

932 0729,MIO,042.006451 000006451 01 MIl 0.309
TAM,MY R COOPER

.~ of Eli 'bility· ' , bidividtial!.Disab1ed

We' are ,writing to tell you about' changes in your Supplemental Se~rity ,

Income payments. The following chart shows the SSImoneyd1..le you fQr'the .

months we changed. As you can see from the chart, we are only changing your

payments for future months. The rest of this letter 'will tell yo1,l mQre about

this change.

'

Your Payments Will Be ,Changed As FolloWII:

From

1'hi-oUgh

Amount Due Each ·Month ..

, August 1,2003

, Continuing

$0.00

Why Your Payments Are ~topping

We are stopping the checks because we need correct' infotmation about your,

name, addressor bank account.

,

'' , ' .

Please contact your Social Security office as soon as possible.

Informatrn About Medicaid

, ,,'

.,

For infonnation about any change in your Medicaid eligibility caused by this , action, you should get in touch with the county welfare department.

Yon Can Review The Information in Your Case

The decisions in this letter are based on the law. You have a right to review

and get copies of the information in our records that we used to make the

deciSIOns explained in this letter. You also have a right to review and copy

, the laws, regulations and policy statements used in deciding your case. 'To do

' so, please contact us. Our telephone number and address are shown under the

heading 'If You Have Any Questions.' ,

,

SSA-L8155

See Next Page

EXHIBIT 4

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-5 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 3 of 5

08/05/2003
. ".- :

Things To Remember

• We may be in touch with you later about any payments we previously made.

• This decision refers only to your claim for Supplemental Security

Income payments.

.

• This determinatioll replaces all previous determinations for the above

~ri~.

-

rue • If you think you may be 'eligible _for SSI again, ple~e contact us. If
you do not contact us before August 2004, you may have to a new

applicati(m. If you have to ftle a new application, the earliest month

for which :we can pay you is the mont~ after you file. .

.

IfYou Disagree With The Decision

If you disagree with the decision, you have _the right to appeal. We will _review your case and consider any new facts you pave.

- • . Youhave 60 days to ask for an appeal.

• ~e 60 days ~art tJte day after you .get this letter. .We assume you g?t

- t~.letter _5 dals.atler·the dat~. Qn it -unless you show us that you did

not get -itwithin the 5-day period.

'

. - .- . .

• You must have a gOod reason for waiting more than 60 days to ask for

an appeal. .

.

-

.• To appeal, .you .must fill out a form called·Request for _

.

RecoIl&idetation.· The form number is SSA-561. · To get this form,

contact one of our offices. We can help you fill out the form. ' .

Appeal In 10 Day_ To B;eepGetting The Same Check

If you appeal within 10 days, you will continue to get the S8me check amount

until we decide your c,ase.

. .-.

'

.

• The 10' days start the day after you get this letter.

.• If you lose your appeal, you might have to pay back .some or all of thiS

mC)lley.

.

.

However~ even if you appeal in 10 _days, we may stop the check in September 2003 as shown on page 1 if both of the following are true:

• Our new decision is the s~ as the one appealed, and

• We send or give you a letter with our new decision in time to stop the

check.

-

SSA,.L8lS5

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-5 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 4 of 5
.'

,
'.
08/05/2003

Page 30f 4

How To Appeal

~ere ar~ three wals to appeal. You. can pick the one you want. H you meet ·
with ~ ill person, It may ~usdeClaeIour ~

• Case Revi~w. You have a right to review the facts in your 'fue. , ,You can give us more facts to add to your file. Then we'll decid~ your case ,again. . You won't meet with the person who decides your case. '

• Informal Conferen<:e. · Y00'11 meet with the person who decides your' case. . You can tell that person why lOU think you're right. You ,can

give us more facts to help prove you re right. Youcan bring other

peop~e to help explain your case. ' " ." , .

,"

• Formal Conference. This is a meet~ like aninfonn.al conference'. The difference is we c~ ~ake peoplecOlne to helt> prove you'reri~.We

can make them brmg unportant PClpers about your case, eVen If t~y ,

don't want to help you. Youcan 'question these people at your

meeting.

'.

," '

",

If You Want Help With· Your Appeal

You" can have amend, lawyer or s,omeone else help you. Th~e are ,grouss .

that <:an h:\p YIU fmd
Tli8re are $0 awyers

!! lara;er ,or who, .0 not

~cv~ege~o·uiiiifrreeSes

~ s~ces if 19M qua ill.
you wm your ·appe8l. Your

local Soci~ Security ~office has a It&t of groups that can help you with yoUr

appeal.

'

.

If you get someone to help you, you should let us mow. If you hire ~meone, we mUst approve the fee before he or she can collect it.

If You Have Any Questions

For general information about SSI,visitour website at ·www:socialsecurity.gov

,on tbe Internet. There, you will also fmd the law and regulations about SSl .

gene~al e~ility'arid SSI payment amounts. . '

. ", . . " .' .

' ;,

For

questions about SSI Qr specific questions about your case; you '

may callus toll-free at 1-800-772-1213, or call yo~ local Social Security office

at 1-503-326-5018. ·We can answer most questions over the phone. You C8Jl,

also write or visit any Social security office. The office that serves your ' ar,ea

is located at:

SOCIAL SECURITY
1538 SW YA.MHILL ST
PORTLAND OR 97205

. SSA-LBl55

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-5 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 5 of 5

.. •
08/05/2003

Page 4 of 4

If you do call or visit an office, pleaSe have this letter with you. It .will help

us answer your questions. Also, if you p'lan to visit an office, you may call

.ahead to make an appointment. 1'hjs W111 help us serve you more quickly

when you arrive at the office.

.

~;L..~
Linda S. McMahon . Deputy Commissioner
. for Operations .

SSA-LBl55

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-6 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 1 of 7
EXHIBIT 5
TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-6 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 2 of 7

Social Security Administration

Supplemental Security Income

Notice of Overpayment

TAMMY R COOPER

SOCIAL SECURITY
1538 SW YAMHILLST
PORTLAND, OR 97205 Claim. Number: I
September 30, 2003 D6

We are writmgto let you know that we have paid you $3,173.80 too much Supplemental Security Income (SSn money. The overpayment happened August 2002 to July 2003.

You were receiving the California supplement payment for August 2002 to July . 2003. You moved to California July 2002 and returned to Oregon A~gust2002. Oar f~ords show SSI was not aware of your return to Oregon until August 2003; therefore, this cr~ated outstanding overpayment.

Later in this letter, we'll give you a detailed explanation: ofyour overPayment.

You ni~t pay us back unless we decide you shouldn't have 1:9 pay us back or· we .are

wrong about the overpayment. Ifyou think: you shouldn't" have to pay us back or

disagree with the decision about the overpayment, you can:

.

Ask for a waiver,

Ask for an appeal, or"

Do both.

This letter will tell you more about these things you can do.

IfWe Don't Hear From You In The Next 30 Days

We plan to collect this overpayment from your SSIchecks. More information will ·follow. .

If you ask for waiver or appeal in the next 30 days, we won't <?hange your check until we decide .the case

See Next Page

EXHIBIT 5

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-6 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 3 of 7
- Page 2of4 If You Think You Shouldn't Have To Pay Us Back You may not have to pay us back. Sometimes we can waive the collection olan overpayment, which means you won't have to pay us back. We can do this if both of the following are true. It wasn't your fault that you got too much SSI money.

Paying us·back would mean you can't pay your bills for food, clothing; housmg, .medical care, or other necessary expenses, or it would be unfair for some other · reason.

If you think these are true about you, contact any Social Security office. You can ask for waiver at any time by completing the waiver form and returning it to us. The
or form is called Request for Waiver of Recovery Change in Repayment Rate, Form
SSA·632. We will be happy to help you fill out the form. We won't collect the
overpayment while we decide if we can waive it.

IfYou Disagree With The Decision

Ifyou disagree with the decision, you have the right·to appeal~ We ~ review your case and look at any new facts you have.

You have 60 days to ask for an appeai

The 60 days start the day after you get this letter. We assumeyoug6t this letter 5 days after the date on it unless you show us that you did not get itWithiil. the 5-day period.

You must have a good reason for waiting·more than 60 days to ask for an appeal.

To appeal, you must fill out a form called "Request for Reconsideration." The form

number is SSA·561. To get this form, contact one of our offices. We can help you fill

out the fQrm.

.

How To Appeal
There are three ways to .appeal. You can pick the one you want. 1!you meet with us
in person. it may help us decide your case .

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-6 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 4 of 7
Page 3 of 4
Case Review. You have a right to review the facts in your file. You can give' us more facts to add to your file. Then we will decide your case again. You won't meet with the person who decides yOUr case.
Informal Conference. You'll meet with the person who decides your case. You can ' tell that person why you think you're right. You can give us more facts to help prove you're right. You can bring other people to help explain your case.
Formal Conference. This is a meeting like an informal conference. The difference is we can make people come to help prove you're right. We can m8.ke them bring important papers about your case, even if they don't want to help you. You can question'these people at your meeting
,It You Want Help With Your Appeal
You can have a friend, lawyer, or someone else help you. There are groups that can help you find a lawyer or give you free legal services if you qualify: There are also laWyers who do not charge unless you win your appeal Your Social Security office has a list of groups that,can help you with your appeal.
lfyou get someone to h~lp you, you should let Us know.lfyou hire ~'me~ne, we
must approve the fee before he or she can collect it. ,
How To Pay Us Back
There are two ways you can pay us back.
As we said earlier, we plan to hold back money from your SSI check. We'll hold back , $55.'20 each month December,2003 until the overpayment is paid back. This is not ' " _more than 10 percent of your toW income~ Ten percent is the most We c8.n hold back
without your consent. Contact us iC you want a different amount held back.
Another way to pay us back'is to send us a check or money order for the full amount
ofyour overpayment of $3,173.80. Paying us this way is voluntary . Make the check ,or money order out to the Social Security Ad ministration. Be sure to put' your Social
Security number on it. Please use the enclosed e'nvelope to mail the check or money 'order to us. Also, be sure to enclose the payment stub with your check or money
order

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA
. ·

Document 93-6

Filed 06/18/2008 Page 5 of 7 Page 4of4

IfYou Have Any Questions

For general information about 881, visit our website at www.ssa.gov on the Internet, There you will also find the law and regulations about 8SI eligibility and 881 payment am'ounts.

For general questions about 881 or specific questions about your case, you may call us toll-free at 1-800-772-1213 or call your local Social Security office at 503-3265019. If you call or visit our office, please bring this letter with you and ask for Ms.

~~~ '
Randy Crockett Field Office Manager

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-6 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 6 of 7

I

•

A Detailed Explanation Of The Overpaym(fnt

. Overpayment Summary

We overpaidy0.u $3,173.80. The.following table shows how your payment changed each month. The first column lists the month(s) we paid you incOrreCtly. The next column showS the amount we paid you for each month. The last column, Correct Amount for Each Month shows the amount we should ~ve paid yo'u for each
month.

Month
.August 2002 S e p t e m b e r ·2002 October 2002 November 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003
June 2003
July 2003

Incorrect Amount Paid $604.00 $604.00
$604;()()
. $604.00
$604.00 ·$608.00
$608.00 $608.00 $608.00 $608.00 $607.30 $607.30

Correct Amount Due $320.00 $320.00 .
$320.00 $320.00 $320.00 $324.00 $324.00 $324.00 $324.00 . $324.00 $324.00 $324.00

Why You Were Overpaid
California Supplement payment for August 2002 to July 2003 caused overpayment.
. '

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 93-6
· .

Filed 06/18/2008 Page 7 of 7

PAYMENT STUB
To help us credit your record, please fill out this form and return it with your payment in the enclosed envelope.

NAME: T.AM:MY R COOPER ACCOUNT NUMBER: AMOUNT DUE: $3,173.80 ENTER AMOUNT ENCLOSED $,_ _ _ _ __

"

;i

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8

9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

10 AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, a District

11

of Columbia non-profit corporation, SCARLETT MILES, MARVELENA QUESADA, ARLENE

12

DOHERTY, ALICE MARJORIE DONOVAN, BILLIE JEAN KEITH, GEORGE P. SMITH, MARY

13

ANN ALEXANDER, and LAURA M. RUSSELL on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

14

Plaintiffs,

15

v.

16 MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social

17

Security Administration, in his official capacity, and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

18

Defendants.

19

/

No. C 05-04696 WHA
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AFTER BENCH TRIAL

20

INTRODUCTION

21

This nationwide class action challenges the adequacy of alternative modes of

22 communication by the Social Security Administration in its notices and other correspondence to

23 the blind and visually impaired. This order is the decision of the Court following a bench trial.

24

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25

Plaintiffs represent two classes of blind or visually impaired individuals that receive

26 benefits from the Social Security Administration for themselves or as representative payees on

27 behalf of others. Also a plaintiff is the American Council for the Blind, a national membership

28 organization of visually impaired persons. In 2005, their action was commenced to compel SSA

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 to provide alternative formats of communication that would enable the class to have more equal

2 access to participate in SSA programs. The alternatives include Braille, large print, electronic

3 mail, computer disks, and audiotape recordings. Plaintiffs seek relief under Section 504 of the

4 Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs seek

5 declaratory relief and a permanent injunction, not damages.

6

An order dated April 23, 2008, denied SSA’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter

7 jurisdiction, holding that: (i) plaintiffs’ claims were not subject to the jurisdictional bar of

8 Section 405(h) of the Social Security Act; (ii) a private right of action for equitable relief under

9 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act exists under Ninth Circuit precedent; (iii) jurisdiction was

10 therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. 1331; and (iv) plaintiffs stated a claim under the Rehabilitation

11 Act (Dkt. No. 78). The Rehabilitation Act, not the Social Security Act, the order held, established

12 the basis for plaintiffs’ discrimination claims, the Rehabilitation Act having created a duty on

13 the agency to provide meaningful access to participants. Contrary to SSA, its obligations under

14 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act were not limited to the special-notice provisions of

15 42 U.S.C. 421(l), 1383(l). The order also held that the agency was obligated by the Rehabilitation

16 Act to provide special services to blind recipients without regard to whether blindness is the basis

17 for their benefits and notwithstanding the special-notice provisions in the Social Security Act.

18

Once that important question was decided, the April 2008 order also requested both sides’

19 views concerning the best approach going forward and presented four options, including:

20 (i) continue the litigation; (ii) stay the case so the agency could pursue rulemaking under

21 Section 504 in the first instance; (iii) remand the action to the agency for rulemaking; or

22 (iv) certify the order for interlocutory review. In response, both sides insisted that the best course

23 of action was to continue the litigation.

24

A later order denied SSA’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ due process claims (Dkt. No. 83).

25 Because significant factual disputes existed, the order could not conclude as a matter of law that

26 the agency provided sufficient notice under the due process clause. The parties also disagreed as

27 to which test provided the appropriate legal standard. Declining to decide the applicable legal

28

2

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 standard, the order concluded that if plaintiffs’ alleged facts were true, then they plausibly could

2 be entitled to relief under either standard.

3

An order dated September 11, 2008, certified two classes (Dkt. No. 126 at 10):

4

Individuals with visual impairments that substantially limit the

major life activity of seeing who require that materials be in an

5

accessible format in order to participate in the Social Security

Administration’s Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance

6

program or the Supplemental Social Security Income program as

applicants, beneficiaries, or recipients, but not as representative

7

payees with the class representatives being Tammy Renee Cooper,

Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie

8

Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Dorothy Jackson,

Mary Ann Alexander, and Laura M. Russell.

9

*

*

*

10

Individuals with visual impairments that substantially limit the

11

major life activity of seeing who require that materials be in an

accessible format in order to participate in the Social Security

12

Administration’s Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance

program or the Supplemental Social Security Income program as

13

representative payees with the class representatives being Mary

Ann Alexander and Laura Russell.

14

As of March 2009, class representatives Tammy Cooper and Dorothy Jackson withdrew.

15

A later order, denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment because of factual

16

disputes (Dkt. No. 238). The instant order follows a seven-day trial, closing arguments, and

17

lengthy proposed findings and conclusions. Rather than vet each and every proposal, this order

18

will find its own way through the evidence and arguments. Any proposal that has been expressly

19

agreed to by the opposing side, however, shall be deemed adopted (but only to the extent agreed

20

on) even if not expressly so stated herein. That a proposal has not been expressly covered herein

21

does not necessarily mean it was rejected; it only means that the Court has sifted through the

22

evidence in a different way.

23

FINDINGS OF FACT

24

TITLE II AND TITLE XVI OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT

25

1. Pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act, the Social Security Administration

26

provides old age, retirement, survivor, and disability insurance benefits to individuals who have

27

contributed to the program and who are disabled or are the child or spouse of such an individual.

28

42 U.S.C. 401–34.

3

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2. Under Title XVI, the agency provides benefits to financially needy individuals

2 who are aged, blind, or disabled under the Supplemental Security Income program. 42 U.S.C.

3 1381–83f.

4

3. Approximately 53.1 million beneficiaries receive Title II benefits, and 7.5 million

5 receive Title XVI benefits. The programs pay approximately $60 billion in benefits per month.

6

4. SSA has more than 65,000 employees nationwide. This includes about 52,000

7 employees in 1,300 field offices, 35 teleservice centers, and six program service centers.

8

5. SSA sends about 350 million notices and forms per year, which includes

9 100 million notices that are individualized. The agency sends out approximately 2.2 to 2.7

10 notices per year to each beneficiary or recipient. Such notices include end-of-year statements,

11 1099 tax forms, change of address, changes in benefit amount, and appointment letters. In short,

12 SSA administers a massive program serving many millions of beneficiaries.

13

THE SPECIAL NOTICE POLICY

14

6. In 1988 and 1990, Congress added special-notice provisions to the Social Security

15 Act. Pursuant to these provisions, individuals receiving benefits or applying for benefits on the

16 basis of blindness are entitled to elect from three different methods of receiving notices of any

17 decision or determination: (i) a mailed notice with a follow-up telephone call; (ii) certified mail;

18 or (iii) “notification by some alternative procedure established by the Commissioner of Social

19 Security and agreed to by the individual.” 42 U.S.C. 421(l), 1383(l). Pursuant to the Act, SSA

20 established its “Special Notice Policy.” A central question in this case is whether this procedure

21 is adequate under the Rehabilitation Act and due process clause.

22

7. As enacted, the Special Notice Policy only applied to individuals applying for or

23 receiving benefits “on the basis of blindness.” There are now approximately 250,000 individuals

24 receiving benefits on the basis of blindness. In 2006, after the action commenced, however, the

25 agency voluntarily extended the options to also include visually impaired participants in the

26 Title II and Title XVI programs, and not just individuals receiving benefits on the basis of

27 blindness. There are now approximately three million blind and visually impaired individuals

28 receiving benefits under Title II and Title XVI.

4

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

8. Pursuant to SSA’s Special Notice Policy, participants may elect to receive notice

2 of decisions and determinations either through: (i) first-class mail followed by a telephone call

3 from the agency; (ii) certified mail; or (iii) first-class mail. When an option has not been elected,

4 the default is standard print notice sent via first-class mail in the normal way.

5

9. A representative payee — that is, an individual who receives benefits on

6 someone’s behalf — can elect a SNP option for receiving notices only if the representative payee

7 resides at the same address as the beneficiary or recipient. SSA does not collect or store

8 information regarding whether a representative payee is blind or visually impaired.

9

10. The agency includes its operating policies, including the SNP, in its Program

10 Operations Manual System (“POMS”). POMS, however, is not completely current, meaning that

11 POMS NL 00603.030, the most pertinent provisions, only informs agency employees to provide

12 SNP options to “individuals applying for or receiving [T]itle II or [T]itle XVI disability benefits

13 by reason of blindness” (TX 2 at 1). It does not state that the policy was extended to those with a

14 visual impairment.

15

11. To meet this omission, a separate document — an Emergency Message titled

16 EM-08066 — has informed employees about the extension to others. This emergency message

17 was published on June 30, 2008, after the order herein denying a motion to dismiss. (The agency

18 was not ordered to do so.) EM-08066 stated that the SNP also applies to individuals who allege

19 a visual impairment, not just individuals receiving benefits based on blindness. In particular,

20 it stated that “[s]ince system changes in 2006, coding of a special notice option for Title II

21 beneficiaries and Title XVI recipients has been mandatory for individuals receiving benefits

22 based on blindness but optional for individuals who allege a visual impairment but are not

23 receiving benefits based on blindness.” It also notified agency employees that representative

24 payees who live at the same address as the beneficiary or recipient may elect a SNP option.

25

12. POMS is available on the agency’s internet and intranet sites. A link on the

26 agency’s intranet site for POMS NL 00603.030 provides access to EM-08066.

27

13. The SNP only applies to notices of “any decisions, determinations or proposed

28 action that affect an [individual’s] right under [T]itle II or [T]itle XVI” (TX 2 at 1). It is not

5

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 applicable to appointment confirmation letters, cost-of-living-adjustment notices, routine

2 correspondence (e.g., requests for additional medical information) or supplemental material

3 (e.g., pamphlets). Rather, SSA policy only requires that certain notices, as listed above, be read

4 and instructs the recipient to seek help with any supplemental material from a local field office.

5

14. When the SNP was first established, the agency sent standard print mailers to

6 Title II and Title XVI recipients receiving benefits based on blindness. It included a letter

7 spelling out the three SNP options. It also included a postcard that an individual could complete

8 and return indicating their preferred option. After the agency extended the SNP to the visually

9 impaired, it did not send out a mailer or other written notification to tell them about the

10 expansion. Now, the agency’s procedure is to offer the options to individuals who are blind or

11 visually impaired when they apply for benefits or undergo a redetermination of eligibility for

12 benefits.

13

15. The SNP is beneficial to some blind and visually impaired individuals, particularly

14 the telephone-call option. When a notice needs to be read, notices for Title II individuals are sent

15 to the processing center to be read, and notices for Title XVI recipients are sent to the field offices

16 to be read. If an individual elects the telephone-call option, the agency’s policy requires its

17 employees to call the individual within five days of the date on the notice.

18

16. If telephone contact is unsuccessful, employees are instructed to make the second

19 and third attempts within the next two days. Employees are only required to call three times.

20 Sometimes, an agency employee in his or her discretion may call more than three times (but is not

21 required to do so). Employees are directed to read the entire notice verbatim to the recipient,

22 including cumbersome tables and boilerplate. They may also answer questions during the

23 telephone calls. POMS instructs employees to “[i]nform the claimant that a copy of every notice

24 will be mailed to him/her. Therefore, advise the claimant that it is his/her responsibility to rely on

25 the paper notice for their rights and responsibilities, e.g., due process or appeal rights” (TX 2058).

26 In some instances, the agency’s attempts to contact the individual by telephone are unsuccessful.

27 Agency employees are told that proposed agency action should not be canceled solely because the

28

6

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 notice was not read to the individual after three unsuccessful attempts at telephone contact.

2 In such cases, in other words, the agency stands on the written notice as adequate.

3

17. Recently, the agency notified employees that they may annotate notices in the SSA

4 online retrieval system when they have read it to an individual. Before this policy was

5 announced, some employees annotated the notice itself and placed it in the paper file.

6

18. While the SNP provides three options, it essentially only provides one option

7 besides standard print and that is the supplemental telephone call. The supplemental phone call

8 is beneficial to some blind and visually impaired individuals. But it also burdens the agency.

9 For instance, some field office employees complain vociferously in a few cases about having to

10 read the entire notice. These complaints stem from the fact that the notices sometimes contain

11 boilerplate language that can be two to three pages long. Reading a notice, such as a lengthy

12 overpayment notice, can take at least thirty minutes. (On the other hand, it takes much less time

13 to read a short appointment letter.) Further lengthening the process are the questions individuals

14 ask while the employees are reading the notice. Reading a long notice verbatim may be

15 frustrating not only to the person reading it but also to the person who is listening.

16

19. A statistical report as of June 22, 2008, shows that 12,977 individuals have elected

17 to have a supplemental telephone call to have notices read. This data was collected before the

18 publication of EM-08066 announcing to employees that the SNP was expanded to include

19 visually impaired individuals as well as the blind.

20

20. Despite some shortfalls in execution, some of which are outlined below, the SNP

21 is generally administered by SSA in a sincere and well-intentioned way. The agency has made

22 a reasonable and good faith effort to implement its SNP. The main issue is not shortfalls in the

23 implementation but rather shortfalls in the concept itself, meaning whether the SNP, even if

24 executed with perfection, measures up to the requirements of Section 504.

25

THE TOLL-FREE NUMBER AND FIELD OFFICES

26

21. Besides the SNP, SSA offers a toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213, that anyone,

27 whether blind or sighted, may call to ask questions or have a notice read over the phone.

28 The phone center is staffed by teleservice representatives from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., on weekdays.

7

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Automated telephone service is available 24 hours a day. SSA informs the public they can call

2 the toll-free number when the person applies and on the agency’s website.

3

22. Getting through to a live person, however, is not always easy. In addition, some

4 notices are not available on the online retrieval system for teleservice representatives to access

5 and read to the caller. For example, plaintiff Bernice Candarian called the agency, including the

6 toll-free number, because she wanted the agency employee to read a notice to her. On several

7 occasions, the agency employee could not read a notice because it could not be located.

8

23. In addition to the toll-free number, individuals can call or visit the field office to

9 have a notice read to them. Notices created locally at field offices are not automatically put in

10 the online retrieval system and may not be immediately available when someone calls in to the

11 toll-free number or the field office.

12

24. Field office employees may be busy with their other duties, such as interviewing

13 applicants, which takes time away from being able to read a notice. It is sometimes difficult to

14 get through on the telephone to a field office employee.

15

25. According to the testimony of Karen Sims, a SSA district manager for the San

16 Mateo County Office, it would be faster to copy a long letter in Microsoft Word, burn it to a CD,

17 and then mail it to the recipient than to read it verbatim over the phone. Simply put, reading a

18 notice verbatim over the phone is time consuming. This existing burden is a factor to consider in

19 weighing the comparative advantages of other modes of communication with the blind and

20 visually impaired.

21

“GOOD CAUSE” RELIEF

22

26. The date a person receives a notice is presumed to be five days after the date on a

23 notice, unless the individual can prove otherwise. Then, the person has ten days after receipt of a

24 notice to file a written appeal request and a request for his or her payments to continue while the

25 appeal is pending. The person has sixty days to appeal. If a request has been made, the person’s

26 benefits will not be reduced until after there is a decision on the appeal and a reduction is

27 determined to be necessary. If a written appeal request is received after the ten-day period, a

28 written request for good cause is required.

8

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

27. SSA’s “good cause” waiver policy allows individuals to file untimely appeals and

2 requests for reconsideration. To obtain a waiver, an individual must show that they have good

3 cause for filing the request late. In determining whether good cause exists, employees are told to

4 consider whether the individual’s physical limitation (e.g., blindness) prevented him from filing

5 a timely request or from understanding or knowing about the need to file a timely request for

6 appeal. But it may or may not be considered good cause, depending on the circumstances.

7

SHORTCOMINGS OF THE SNP

8

28. There are several drawbacks to the SNP from the perspective of blind and visually

9 impaired individuals.

10

29. One is that POMS does not instruct employees to make calls at different times of

11 the day. The phone calls are not timed for when a recipient is most likely to be at home to receive

12 a call. Failing to call at different times increases the likelihood that the individual will not be

13 reached. Also, some individuals may have structured activities during the business hours of

14 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

15

30. Another drawback is that some plaintiffs have only received a SNP telephone call

16 only a few times over many years. For instance, plaintiff Mary Ann Alexander received only one

17 call in over three years after electing the SNP telephone call in 2006. Similarly, although plaintiff

18 Bernice Candarian selected the telephone call option in the early 1990s, she has only received

19 two calls from SSA to read a notice since then.

20

31. While POMS instructs employees to read the entire notice, some employees fail to

21 do so. For example, Bernice Candarian received a call and an agency employee only paraphrased

22 the contents of a notice and refused to read it verbatim. One SSA district manager acknowledged

23 she has “documented” employees for not reading the entire notice and has reminded them of the

24 policy and re-trained them to do so in the future.

25

32. Class members must listen to the cumbersome reading of boilerplate and tables.

26 This makes it hard to comprehend the essence of the notice. Having someone read over the

27 telephone does not compare to being able to absorb the information independently in order to

28 study it, review it, and comprehend at one’s own speed and mode of “reading.”

9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

33. A major problem with the telephone notice is that class members cannot be

2 expected to recall the full notice later. Everyone who receives an important notice needs to be

3 able to store it and retrieve it for later use. The blind and visually impaired need to do so as well.

4 When a blind individual prepares a response to an important notice, he or she must, under the

5 SNP, wait until a relative, neighbor, or other reader can re-read the document to them or wait

6 to reach an employee on the toll-free number, which is only available weekdays and only from

7 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. In addition, a person cannot earmark key passages in the standard print notices.

8

34. It is true that the individual could call the agency to have the notice read again but,

9 as stated, that opportunity is limited to twelve hours a day, only on weekdays and is hit or miss

10 anyway. Thus, the information in notices is not readily available at times when the individual

11 may be able to prepare a reply. So the individual still faces the problem of trying to remember

12 the notice contents verbatim. (To make matters worse, some notices are not available on the

13 agency’s online retrieval system.)

14

35. There is only sporadic and anecdotal evidence in the record that any blind and

15 visually impaired recipients have had their benefits reduced or terminated without ultimate

16 reinstatement due to a lack of an accessible format.

17

36. One example is the experience of Mary Ann Alexander. Ms. Alexander is blind

18 with some light perception. Ms. Alexander was the representative payee for her minor daughters.

19 In 2002, she received a notice from the agency stating that it had reduced one of her daughter’s

20 benefits because of overpayment. She does not know whether there was a prior notice regarding

21 this issue. Ms. Alexander filed a late request for reconsideration. Her employer, an attorney,

22 wrote letters on her behalf and the agency accepted her late requests for reconsideration. A year

23 later, when the issue still had not been resolved, she also wrote a letter to her congressman and

24 finally the agency responded in a letter. That letter acknowledged that the agency had been

25 in error and would reinstate her daughter’s benefits. It took fourteen months to resolve this.

26 For those fourteen months, she had less income for her household. On another occasion, she

27 did not submit her daughter’s accounting form on time. SSA accepted the late filing of the form,

28 however, and did not suspend her daughter’s benefits.

10

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

37. Another example is the experience of plaintiff Marvelena Quesada.

2 Ms. Quesada is totally blind. The agency reduced Ms. Quesada’s benefits because of an

3 overpayment. The overpayment resulted because Ms. Quesada failed to report her work

4 expenses and she was unaware that she had to report blind work expenses. She represented

5 that she did not have access to the program rules regarding blind work expenses and no one at

6 SSA read them to her. Because of the reduction, she had difficulty paying her rent, buying food

7 and clothing, and paying her bills. But Ms. Quesada failed to inform SSA that her address had

8 changed and she no longer lived with her mother. (It is unclear whether this information was

9 sent to her mother’s address.)

10

38. Plaintiff Arlene Doherty had a similar experience. Ms. Doherty is totally blind.

11 In 1997, Doherty received a letter from SSA requesting that she complete an enclosed application

12 within ten days or she might lose her benefits. The letter requested that she answer the circled

13 questions, sign where there were checks, and sign her initials next to any corrections. SSA did

14 not call her to read this notice and did not offer to help her complete the application. But there is

15 no evidence in the record as to whether Doherty had selected the SNP telephone option in 1997.

16

39. In sum, the evidence is only anecdotal as to the aggravation caused by the SNP

17 and the extent to which class members have lost benefits as a result of its shortfalls. No survey of

18 class members was presented, for example. In light of the overall record, however, it seems clear

19 that the SNP is not effective for some blind and visually impaired individuals.

20

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTED ALTERNATIVE FORMATS

21

40. Plaintiffs seek to have the agency offer a menu of alternative formats of

22 communications, including Braille, large print, electronic mail, computer disks, and audiotape

23 recordings.

24

41. Some of the class members previously asked SSA to provide an alternative format

25 other than standard print or a supplemental telephone call: Mary Ann Alexander asked generally

26 for an alternative format; Billie Jean Keith asked for large print multiple times; Scarlett Miles

27 requested a cassette tape and email multiple times; Bernice Candarian requested large print;

28

11

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Marvelena Quesada asked for Braille, email, and CD. SSA routinely denies individuals’ requests

2 for alternate formats.

3

42. SSA does not consider requests for alternative formats. If an alternative is

4 requested, the agency employee is instructed to tell the person that the alternate option is not

5 offered and to inform him or her of the SNP option.

6

43. Plaintiff American Council of the Blind, an organization with about 20,000 blind

7 and visually impaired members, provides a monthly magazine in Braille, large print, audio

8 cassette tapes, email, and CD.

9

44. Other entities, including banks, telephone companies, gas and electric companies,

10 and state government, provide alternate formats, specifically Braille and email, to class

11 representatives. This includes individualized information. Outside of SSA, this is increasingly

12 available as a service to the blind and visually impaired.

13

45. SSA also provides some publications on its website and, upon request, in Braille,

14 audio cassette tapes, CD, or large print. For example, a publication entitled “If You are Blind or

15 Have Low Vision — How We Can Help” is provided in Braille.

16

BRAILLE

17

46. One of the requested alternative formats is Braille. Braille has been used by blind

18 and visually impaired individuals for many years. Less than ten percent of the blind and visually

19 impaired can read Braille. Most refer to “Braille” as paper-embossed Braille. Paper-embossed

20 Braille is created with a Braille printer that has pins that make indentations on the back of the

21 paper so that the individual can feel the indentations. Using personal embossers, individuals can

22 also make their own paper Braille.

23

47. Some blind and visually impaired individuals, especially those who are blind early

24 in life, learn Braille in school. Those who learn it early can read it very quickly, effectively at a

25 rate of 200 or 300 words a minute, including tables and charts. Those who have lost their vision

26 later in life are less likely to learn Braille or, if they do, they usually cannot read it as fast.

27

28

12

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

48. The paper Braille option does not require a person to use a computer to access the

2 information in the notice. Thus, there is no computer technology barrier for the blind and visually

3 impaired using paper Braille.

4

49. A paper Braille document can be delivered through standard mail. According to

5 plaintiff’s expert testimony, Braille is often the first choice as a way to receive information for

6 those who can read it.

7

LARGE PRINT

8

50. Another requested alternate format is large print. It is generally used by

9 individuals with low vision. Large print is merely a larger version of a print document. For a

10 document to be considered large print, it must be at least 14-point, but the optimal size is

11 18-point. Large print can usually be generated using a word processor by assigning a larger font.

12 This presents a problem in some instances when the increased font size is so large that the text,

13 in a table for example, does not wrap properly. This presents a practical limitation to the size

14 that can be used effectively.

15

51. Besides large print, there are other tools that people with low vision regularly

16 use to read standard print. For example, ordinary glass magnifiers are commonly used to

17 increase the size of a standard or large print document. Some individuals use digital magnifiers,

18 or closed-circuit televisions, which will magnify a document and project it on a screen. There are

19 also commonly available handheld digital magnifiers about the size of a paperback book that

20 show a document on the screen. In addition, there are large print display software programs that

21 can be used with a computer to enlarge text on the screen. With this specialized software, one

22 can assign different font sizes.

23

52. A large print letter or notice can be sent via standard post, although the page size

24 may be larger than the standard size.

25

AUDIO TAPE RECORDING

26

53. One type of audio recording is an audio cassette tape recording. This is old

27 technology. This records a human voice in analog form on a cassette tape. An audio cassette

28 player is required to listen to a cassette tape. The benefit of a cassette tape is that one can rewind

13

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 it and review the information. But it is limited to just going forward or backward and cannot be

2 “navigated” as effectively as newer technologies discussed below. Audio cassette tapes are being

3 phased out. There has been a steady trend to digital recordings and away from cassette tapes.

4

AUDIO CD RECORDING

5

54. Audio recordings may also be available on CDs. An audio CD player is required

6 to listen to an audio CD. This is a newer technology than cassette tapes. The sound is converted

7 to digital information and stored as such and the process is reversed for playback. Because screen

8 readers do not work for an audio CD player, navigation is not available, except that if a notice is

9 broken up into sections, the CD player can tab forward (or backward) to the next segment in the

10 same way we all tab forward and backward in listening to music CDs.

11

DATA CD

12

55. More pertinent is a data CD, not an audio CD. On a data CD, there can be a

13 variety of files, including text, like a Microsoft Word document. It can be navigated using

14 software to read the information. A data CD with a Word or WordPerfect document on it can

15 be read with a screen reader. If a table is created in a Word document, then Word automatically

16 creates the structure for the table.

17

56. There are commercial screen readers that the blind and visually impaired can use

18 with a computer to read alphanumeric information. Window-Eyes and JAWS are two examples.

19 Free screen readers are also available online, including Open Source. A screen reader can be

20 used to read out loud documents in a word processor, such as Microsoft Word. If a notice is sent

21 in a format that can be opened by Microsoft Word, then a person could use Microsoft Word and

22 a screen reader to read the notice. Dr. George Kerscher demonstrated this at trial. Mary Ann

23 Alexander testified that as a legal assistant she uses a computer equipped with JAWS to read

24 documents. A benefit of a CD with Microsoft Word is that it provides a permanent re-accessible

25 record.

26

57. The DAISY system demonstrated by Dr. Kerscher included a data CD with a

27 variety of files, including audio recordings and text. It was navigated using conforming software.

28 DAISY stands for the Digital Accessible Information System. The DAISY consortium is a

14

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 worldwide consortium that was started by libraries who produce alternate formats for the blind

2 and visually impaired and whose goal is to standardize how libraries could provide information

3 to such individuals. The DAISY system is a United States standard, also referred to as the

4 ANSI/NISO Z39.86 specification for digital talking books. ANSI is the American National

5 Standards Institute, which certifies specifications. NISO is the National Information Standards

6 Organization, which is a standard organization primarily focused on library and information

7 services that are ANSI-certified.

8

58. A computer can easily use text-to-speech technology to create a voice reading the

9 contents. Computer programs provide extensive navigation and the ability to go to particular

10 chapters, sections, and pages of a document.

11

59. The agency has provided a data CD of a Word document to at least one

12 beneficiary, plaintiff Alice Marjorie Donovan, proving that it can be done in our context.

13 More particularly, Karen Sims, an agency manager in the office in question, sent SSA

14 notices on CDs to Ms. Donovan for three years. This, however, was not typical agency

15 practice. To prepare and send the CD, Sims cut the logo graphics out of the notices, redacted

16 Ms. Donovan’s Social Security number, copied the content of the letter to a Microsoft Word

17 document, burned it to a CD, and mailed the CD to Ms. Donovan. While noting it was time

18 consuming, Sims testified, “[b]ut what you’re trying to do is make sure that the person

19 understands what’s going on, and is able to use it in their system. So that’s what we did”

20 (Tr. 838:16–18). Sending the CD saved the time the field office would have spent reading the

21 notice over the telephone.

22

60. In at least the San Mateo County field office, the claims representatives, service

23 representatives, and technical experts have their own computers with CD burners. There is also

24 an external CD burner that employees can use. Employees can also burn notices from the

25 agency’s central online retrieval system onto a CD.

26

61. In addition, if any individual nationwide requests a copy of his or her disability

27 file, the field office copies it and burns it to a CD to give to the individual. The CD may contain

28 notices.

15

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

EMAIL

2

62. The blind and visually impaired can also read emails using a screen reader.

3 The same features and functions that can be used to read or create a document in Microsoft Word

4 can be used for email. Likewise, a screen reader can be used to read email attachments that are

5 Word files or html files. A Word file attachment would be opened in Microsoft Word, and an

6 html file attachment would be launched in the computer’s default web browser. Screen readers

7 also work well to read and to navigate website browsers, such as Internet Explorer and Mozilla

8 Firefox.

9

63. The agency has used email to communicate with at least one beneficiary.

10 Once again, it was Karen Sims and the San Mateo County field office. They emailed

11 back-and-forth with Marjorie Donovan. The local office had generated many local notices,

12 including requests for information. The notices included individually tailored information as

13 well as boilerplate appeal language. They would redact her Social Security number for security

14 reasons. They stopped emailing her, however, when they realized it might endanger her personal

15 identifiable information. They told her it was not safe for her information to be sent that way.

16 The local office came up with an alternative, and began to send her notices on CD, as discussed

17 above.

18

64. According to SSA policy (TX 2088, 2094), if there is a strong business need,

19 emails can be sent but personal identifiable information should be protected in an attachment

20 that is encrypted or password protected, for example by using WinZip. This policy seems to be

21 intended for business related emails and not for routine Title II and Title XVI notices.

22

65. Class counsel represented in the opening statement that the IRS communicated

23 with the blind by email, but no such evidence was introduced at trial. No federal agency seems

24 (at present) to send emails to any person (beneficiary or taxpayer), at least where such emails

25 would contain personal identifiable information. However, many agencies, including SSA, allow

26 applicants to apply electronically for benefits. The difference is that the agency receives

27 incoming data but does not transmit sensitive data outside the agency.

28

16

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

HOME SCANNERS

2

66. A blind or visually impaired individual at home can “read” a standard-print notice

3 using a combination of his or her own scanner and voice synthesizer. For this, the print document

4 would be scanned using a home scanner of the type already used by millions of Americans.

5 The information is converted using optical character recognition (“OCR”) and optical structural

6 recognition (“OSR”). OCR takes an image of a document and through a series of algorithms

7 attempts to identify the words in the image and OSR attempts to extract the structure in the

8 document image. Then, after scanning the document and using OCR/OSR software, he or she

9 could use a voice synthesizer to listen to the contents of the document. This is beneficial because

10 the individual can access the information and save and file it for future review. But there may be

11 errors in the conversion. Certain words may be inaccurately identified by OCR. It may also

12 improperly identify table headers. Manual intervention would likely be required to fix such

13 errors, including someone looking at the scanned document to check its accuracy.

14

67. According to the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. George Kerscher, one method

15 of converting a standard print notice to an alternative format would be to scan the notice at home.

16 Then, using OCR and OSR, the notice can be converted into a “single-source file,” which can be

17 in html or xml format. Once the html or xml version is produced, it is run through the DAISY

18 pipeline and can be used to create other formats, including Braille, large print, audio, MP3, and

19 Microsoft Word documents.

20

68. As stated, the record is anecdotal as to the extent to which the blind and visually

21 impaired would prefer an alternative to the SNP option. It would have been informative to have

22 more evidence, such as surveys, as to how many find the SNP ineffective or at least substantially

23 less effective than their preferred method. In addition, it would have been helpful to have a

24 survey of SSA’s program participants’ preferred alternate. Nonetheless, the record is sufficient to

25 conclude that more than a de minimus number of blind and visually impaired have requested (or

26 would request if given a clear opportunity) Braille and/or a Microsoft Word notice on a data CD

27 and that they would prefer these alternatives to the SNP options. If Section 85.12 notices had

28

17

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 been provided by SSA to such individuals (as required by law), then we could have expected a

2 more robust record on the extent to which alternatives would better serve the class.

3

ALLEGED BURDEN ON THE AGENCY

4

69. SSA contends that in order to provide notices in formats besides standard print, the

5 agency would be required to change a number of computer systems, modules, and applications.

6

70. As to collection of information, SSA employees enter data about beneficiaries and

7 recipients in input systems, namely the Modernized Claims System (“MCS”); Post-Entitlement

8 Online System (“POS”); Manual Adjustment, Credit and Award Data Entry System

9 (“MACADE”); and Modernized Supplemental Security Income Claims System (“MSSICS”).

10

71. Agency employees enter data into the input systems via the fields on their

11 computer screen. They may enter an individual’s SNP election in the relevant field. Currently, in

12 the input systems, employees can only enter codes/values corresponding to the formats currently

13 offered under the SNP. For example, in MCS, there are only three choices: “1” for certified

14 mail; “2” for telephone contact; and “3” for regular mail. If an employee enters something that is

15 not an option, he or she will receive an error message. Therefore, to provide notices in alternate

16 formats, SSA would have to modify the input systems so employees can enter additional codes

17 corresponding to the preferred alternate format. This, however, would be easy to do.

18

72. Turning to storage, after an employee enters a SNP preference into the input

19 systems, for MCS and MSSICS, it goes to a pending file and then to the master file. SSA stores

20 data in master files or databases, including the master beneficiary record (“MBR”) for Title II

21 beneficiaries, and the supplemental security record (“SSR”) for Title XVI recipients.

22

73. The MBR has a field that stores an individual’s SNP preference, which is called

23 the mailing method indicator field. That field stores a single alphanumeric code. Like the input

24 systems, it is limited to certain acceptable values. The options are for the field to be blank when

25 there is no information, or to have a value (i.e., C, T, or R) for certified mail, telephone contact,

26 or regular mail. The MBR also has a valid value for Braille.

27

74. Similarly, the SSR has a field referred to as the notice option indicator that stores

28 format preferences. That field also stores a single alphanumeric code and the acceptable values

18

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 are restricted. There are coding options for certified mail, regular mail, regular mail with

2 supplemental telephone call, Braille via certified mail, Braille via regular mail, and Braille with

3 a supplemental telephone call.

4

75. There are valid values for Braille in the MBR and SSR because it was offered

5 as an option early on but was later discontinued by SSA. Why it was discontinued is not clear.

6

76. To provide alternate formats, SSA contends it would have to modify the MBR and

7 SSR to store additional format preferences. William Zielinski, an agency employee, conceded at

8 trial that to add more acceptable values the agency could modify the software code. He stated

9 that it is not a matter of whether such a modification would be difficult or not; rather, the agency

10 is concerned about having to do tests and vetting the larger systems after making a change. But

11 the agency has made past changes and has still managed to survive. Changes are made to the

12 MBR and SSR approximately every three to four years. Many of the changes have related to

13 collecting new and different information about a person and thus required adding additional data

14 values. SSA plans to modernize the MBR and SSR by converting the master files to new

15 database formats, with the SSR conversion scheduled to start in 2011 and the MBR conversion set

16 to begin in 2012.

17

77. When SSA plans to change the master files, it does a risk assessment of the types

18 of information to be changed and what areas might be affected. Based on the risk assessment,

19 the agency determines where to perform direct testing for changed functions and where to do

20 regression testing. The agency also determines the degree of testing required. Despite the fact

21 that this litigation has been going on for over four years, no such risk assessment has been

22 conducted as to the proposed alternatives.

23

78. When Mr. Zielinski testified at trial, the Court inquired on this subject

24 (Tr. 1097:11–17):

25

THE COURT: Have you done that risk assessment in this case?

26

THE WITNESS: I have not done that risk assessment, nor have —

27

THE COURT: Has anyone in the agency done that risk assessment?

28

THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge.

19

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

79. Given that the agency is well-equipped to do analyses of this sort, the failure to do

2 a risk assessment associated with plaintiffs’ proposals suggests the agency realizes that the risk

3 would be at the low end. Nevertheless, a minimum level of testing would be conducted for any

4 change for the MBR and SSR. But beyond that minimum level no determination has been made

5 as to how much more testing would be required to make changes necessary to provide the

6 requested alternate formats in this case.

7

80. The agency does not have information on the costs of creating the SNP option

8 field in the master files. Nor does it have any information as to how much it cost to add the

9 Braille option as a valid value in the master files. There is also no estimate as to the cost of

10 adding additional valid values in the master files for plaintiffs’ requested alternative formats.

11

81. Yet another system, the representative payee system (“RPS”), stores information

12 regarding representative payees for SSA programs. There is no field to store the representative

13 payee’s format preference. So, SSA would have to add a field to RPS if it wanted to store data

14 as it does for the MBR and SSR. Presumably, an alternative would be for the agency to store

15 information regarding the representative payee’s preference with the beneficiaries’ information in

16 the MBR or SSR.

17

82. SSA maintains that there are a number of stumbling blocks that stand in the way of

18 providing alternate formats, including: (i) the AFP format; (ii) personal identifiable information

19 risk; (iii) the required five-day notice; (iv) mixed mode capabilities; (v) the sheer volume of

20 notices; (vi) bar codes on notices; (vii) large fonts; and (viii) tables in notices.

21

83. In addition to having various systems to collect and store information, the agency

22 also uses several systems to create notices for Title II and Title XVI program participants.

23 The majority of SSA notices are created in an advanced function presentation or advanced

24 function printing (“AFP”) format. AFP is a standardized print format used for high-speed,

25 high-volume production notices. The majority of SSA notices are AFP files sent to commercial

26 vendors for printing and mailing. Vendors cannot manipulate the content of the AFP notice files.

27 Some features that are available in word-processing software, like Microsoft Word or Word

28 Perfect, such as changing font-size, are not available in AFP. Because the AFP files created by

20

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 SSA are image files, they do not contain metadata or semantic information identifying the

2 structure of the file, which is helpful for blind and visually impaired persons to read a table using

3 a screen reader with a CD with Microsoft Word. But there is evidence that the AFP file could be

4 converted to a format that could be edited and then structure could be added.

5

84. The agency also points to personal identifiable information risk as a problem.

6 Notices contain personal identifiable information, including the individual’s Social Security

7 number, date of birth, name, and address. There is a valid concern that if personal identifiable

8 information is obtained by an unauthorized person, then it could present a security risk.

9 The agency is particularly concerned about email presenting a risk, for example, if someone

10 breached the email server and obtained access to many beneficiaries’ information. This does not

11 present a problem for Braille or CDs to be mailed.

12

85. The agency also states that there is a five-day problem. SSA requires vendors to

13 send notices immediately because the regulation presumes the program participants receive the

14 notices within five days. The regulations state that the “[d]ate you receive notice means 5 days

15 after the date on the notice, unless you show us that you did not receive it within the 5-day

16 period.” 20 C.F.R. 404.901, 416.1401. This five-day period, however, is self-imposed by SSA

17 regulations. As such, SSA can relieve itself of the five-day limit if need be. Braille and

18 Microsoft Word CDs could be sent within the five days.

19

86. Next, the agency says there is a mixed-mode problem. In mixed-mode format,

20 material can be embedded in notices. Banners, seals, signature lines, formatting — all of these

21 items can be placed on the notice in mixed-mode format. AFP can be in mixed-mode format.

22 Because of the mixed-mode format, SSA can add these features to its notices and be consistent

23 throughout the notices. The use of AFP and mixed mode allows the agency to maintain a single,

24 identifiable format. No evidence was presented, however, to show that the agency could not send

25 paper Braille notice with a uniform look if it tried to do so. Likewise, nothing in the record

26 demonstrates that the agency could not produce CDs with a uniform look.

27

87. SSA contends that it cannot identify all class members because many blind or

28 visually impaired individuals have applied for or receive benefits on bases other than blindness.

21

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 The agency contends that it would have to send a mailer to all Title II and Title XVI participants,

2 which would cost the agency approximately $31 million for printing and postage. In the past, the

3 agency received inquiries from five percent of mailer recipients. So, in order to handle public

4 inquiries in response to the mailers would cost the agency another $26.9 million. These cost

5 estimates assume that SSA would have to send a mailer to every participant, all 66 million.

6 The ordered relief, however, will take a different approach that entails sending notice to a much

7 smaller subset of the SSA population.1

8

88. According to the agency, all SSA notices have bar codes and present a problem for

9 large-print documents produced by photocopying. The bar codes are used by the United States

10 Postal Service for delivery of the notices. The bar code appears through a window of the

11 envelope containing the notice. The agency has tried to enlarge a notice by photocopying it.

12 Using this method of enlargement resulted in increased white space between the bar codes and the

13 height of the bar code, and the postal service’s automated equipment cannot read the enlarged bar

14 code. Thus, the postal service would have to manually sort the envelopes. This, however, is

15 mainly a problem for the postal service and not SSA. The agency would lose its mail discount for

16 mail that can be sent automatically. But there was no evidence presented that this would impose

17 an undue financial burden. One agency witness testified that a solution to this problem would be

18 to produce the first page of a notice in standard size with the personalized information, including

19 the address and bar code, and enlarge only the material information in the notice. True, this

20 would require manual intervention. In any event, the ordered class-wide relief entails only paper

21 Braille and a CD. There will be no bar code problem for these alternate formats.

22

89. Yet another alleged burden are tables in notices. Tables are in some SSA notices,

23 but not all notices. The tables in AFP files are not structured, meaning that there is no

24 information in the AFP file identifying the presence of a table or that there are rows and columns

25 or identifying the content of those columns, rows, and headers. But some tables do not have

26 distinctive column headers.

27
1 After the bench trial, plaintiffs filed a motion to strike the testimony of SSA witness Mark Graydon
28 regarding the costs of sending a mailer to all Title II and Title XVI participants. Plaintiffs have not shown that
they clearly asked for this information during discovery. Thus, plaintiffs’ motion to strike is DENIED.

22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

90. AFP files do not contain metadata or semantic information identifying a table.

2 If the content of the document from the AFP file is somehow converted to a PDF file, then a

3 screen reader, such as Window Eyes, would read the table from top-to-bottom or left-to-right

4 without saying a table exists.

5

91. Tables would not present a prohibitive problem in a Braille document. A large,

6 wide table might have to be reformatted because an embossed page cannot fit as much

7 information as a standard print page. But tabular data can be recreated in Braille. A person

8 reading Braille could appreciate the structure of a table by using his or her hand to go down a

9 column or across a row.

10

92. SSA acknowledges that an AFP file could be converted to a Microsoft Word

11 document and put on a CD. The issue is that there would be no structure in the AFP document

12 to identify a table. For a screen reader to read a table, it is not necessary that it have structure,

13 such as column and row header information. Without that information, the screen reader would

14 just read the table from left to right. As the agency’s witness acknowledged, the problem would

15 be solved by providing structure in the notice. So a combination of technology and manual

16 intervention can address this “problem.”

17

93. The agency claims that yet another section of the Rehabilitation Act already

18 imposes requirements that would be all the more burdensome were plaintiffs’ proposed relief

19 accepted. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794d, states that electronic and

20 information technology should be accessible to people with disabilities. It applies to any

21 electronic or information technology, including emails, website, audio files, CDs, PDF

22 documents, and Microsoft Word documents. According to the agency, two Section 508 standards

23 apply to tables in electronic formats: (1) row and column headers must be identified; and (2) data

24 cells in the table must be associated with column and row headers when there are more than two

25 rows or columns. The agency contends that AFP files do not automatically contain this

26 information.

27

28

23

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

94. SSA concedes that notices can be created in electronic formats that comply with

2 Section 508 requirements with manual intervention to add structure to tables and for quality

3 assurance.

4

95. The agency has greatly exaggerated the burden and risks associated with extending

5 accommodations beyond the SNP. No estimate has been prepared regarding how much it would

6 cost to provide plaintiffs’ requested alternates. The vast majority of SSA’s “burden” and “risk”

7 evidence is larded with speculation. SSA regularly makes system changes and can also make one

8 here without undue burden. SSA has not made a convincing case for undue burden, at least as to

9 the relief ordered below.

10

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

11

THE REHABILITATION ACT AND ITS REGULATIONS

12

96. The central issue is whether SSA has failed to comply with Section 504 of the

13 Rehabilitation Act and its implementing regulations. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

14 prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities. One purpose of the Rehabilitation

15 Act is “to empower individuals with disabilities to maximize employment, economic

16 self-sufficiency, independence, and inclusion and integration into society, through . . . the

17 guarantee of equal opportunity.” 29 U.S.C. 701(b)(1); see also American Council of the Blind v.

18 Paulson, 525 F.3d 1256, 1260 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

19

97. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, enacted in 1973, provides (29 U.S.C. 794):

20

No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the

United States, as defined in section 705(20) of this title, shall,

21

solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the

participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to

22

discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal

financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by

23

any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service.

24

98. When this lawsuit began in 2005, SSA argued that Section 504 did not even apply

25 to the issue at hand and that the SNP, having been enacted by Congress, was the sole requirement.

26 SSA now concedes, however, that Section 504 does apply. This history is important because it

27 explains why the agency never bothered to comply with the implementing Rehabilitation Act

28 regulations, such as the notice-of-rights requirement described below.

24

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

99. To implement Section 504, the Department of Health and Human Services

2 promulgated regulations in 1988 that set forth important requirements. One such requirement

3 was that a notice of rights must be provided to individuals with disabilities. 45 C.F.R. 85.12.

4 Section 85.12 provided that the agency should make available “such information regarding the

5 provisions of this part and its applicability to the programs or activities conducted by the agency,

6 and make such information available to them in such a manner as the agency head finds necessary

7 to apprise such persons of the protections against discrimination assured them by section 504

8 and this part.” The comments to the regulation stated that (53 Fed. Reg. 25,595, 25,599 (July 8,

9 1998), as corrected, 53 Fed. Reg. 26,559 (July 13, 1988)):

10

Section 85.12 requires the agency to disseminate sufficient

information to employees, applicants, participants, beneficiaries,

11

and other interested persons to apprise them of the rights and

protections afforded by section 504 and this part. Methods of

12

providing this information include, for example, the publication of

information in handbooks, manuals, and pamphlets that are

13

distributed to the public to describe the agency’s programs and

activities or in connection with recruitment; the display of

14

informative posters in service centers and other public places; or the

broadcasting of information by television or radio.

15

100. No such notice of rights has ever been given to blind and visually impaired

16

individuals by SSA. This was a violation of the Act.

17

101. In addition, “the agency shall ensure that interested persons, including persons

18

with impaired vision or hearing, can obtain information as to the existence and location of

19

accessible services, activities, and facilities.” 45 C.F.R. 85.51(b).2

20

102. In addition to requiring a notice of rights, the regulations provide that (45 C.F.R.

21

85.51):

22

(a) The agency shall take appropriate steps to ensure effective

23

communication with applicants, participants, personnel of other

Federal entities, and members of the public.

24

(1) The agency shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids

25

where necessary to afford an individual with handicaps an equal

opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, program or

26

activity conducted by the agency.

27
2 45 C.F.R. 85.11 states that the agency shall evaluate its policies and practices and modify those that
28 do not meet the requirements of that part. In plaintiffs’ post-trial brief, they state that they do not seek a private
right of action for enforcement of Section 85.11 (Br. at 9 n.17).

25

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

(i) In determining what type of auxiliary aid

2

is necessary, the agency shall give primary

consideration to the requests of the individual with

3

handicaps.

4

(ii) The agency need not provide

individually prescribed devices, readers for personal

5

use or study, or other devices of a personal nature.

6

103. The implementing regulations define “auxiliary aids” as “services or devices that

7 enable persons with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills to have an equal opportunity

8 to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, programs or activities conducted by the agency.”

9 45 C.F.R. 85.3. The regulations then go on to name “readers, Brailled materials, [and] audio

10 recordings” as examples of auxiliary aids that are appropriate for persons with impaired vision.

11 Ibid. Similarly, the section-by-section analysis states that “[f]or vision-impaired persons,

12 effective communication might be achieved by several means, including readers and audio

13 recordings.” 53 Fed. Reg. at 25602.

14

104. But there are limits on the action the agency must take. Subpart (ii) makes clear

15 that the agency need not provide individually prescribed devices, such as a reader (or computer or

16 magnifying glass). Perhaps more importantly for our case, Section 85.51(d) states that the agency

17 is not required to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration

18 in the nature of a program or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. It further

19 provides:

20

In those circumstances where agency personnel believe that the

proposed action would fundamentally alter the program or activity

21

or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, the

agency has the burden of proving that compliance with § 85.51

22

would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that

compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made

23

by the agency head or his or her designee after considering all

agency resources available for use in the funding and operation of

24

the conducted program or activity in question and must be

accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that

25

conclusion. If an action required to comply with this section would

result in such an alteration or such burdens, the agency shall take

26

any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such

burdens but would nevertheless ensure that, to the maximum extent

27

possible, individuals with handicaps receive the benefits and

services of the program or activity.

28

26

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

105. “Any interpretation of [Section] 504 must . . . be responsive to two powerful but

2 countervailing considerations — the need to give effect to the statutory objectives and the desire

3 to keep [Section] 504 within manageable bounds.” Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 299

4 (1985). The Supreme Court struck a balance between these two considerations by requiring “that

5 an otherwise qualified handicapped individual must be provided with meaningful access to the

6 benefit that the grantee offers.” Id. at 301 (emphasis added). A prior order herein has previously

7 held that “defendants have a continuing duty under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to

8 provide meaningful access to all visually disabled recipients of and applicants to Social Security

9 programs” (Dkt. No. 78 at 12).

10

106. While Section 504 requires meaningful access, it only entitles individuals to

11 reasonable accommodations. Accommodations are not reasonable if they would entail either

12 an undue financial and administrative burden or a fundamental alteration in the nature of a

13 program. Choate, 469 U.S. at 301; Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397,

14 410, 412 (1979).

15

107. In the instant case, there are two main questions: (i) whether blind and visually

16 impaired plaintiffs have “meaningful access” to SSA notices, and (ii) if not, whether the acts

17 necessary to achieve meaningful access would impose an “undue burden” on SSA. See Choate,

18 469 U.S. at 301; Davis, 442 U.S. at 412.

19

108. SSA has not provided meaningful access for its Title II and Title XVI programs

20 to all blind and visually impaired individuals as required by Section 504. Nor has it provided

21 effective communication for all plaintiffs, as required by Section 85.51.

22

109. Acknowledging that the decisions addressing meaningful access are fact-specific,

23 the D.C. Circuit has stated that the decisions reflect the following general pattern:

24

Where the plaintiffs identify an obstacle that impedes their access to

a government program or benefit, they likely have established that

25

they lack meaningful access to the program or benefit. By contrast,

where the plaintiffs seek to expand the substantive scope of a

26

program or benefit, they likely seek a fundamental alteration to the

existing program or benefit and have not been denied meaningful

27

access.

28 American Council of the Blind v. Paulson, 525 F.3d 1256, 1267 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

27

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

110. In this action, the pervasive use of standard print only is the obstacle impeding

2 plaintiffs’ access. Plaintiffs simply cannot read them without help. In Choate, on which

3 defendants heavily rely, the Supreme Court concluded that a state was not required to expand

4 the durational limits of its inpatient coverage to meet the greater medical needs of handicapped

5 Medicaid recipients. 469 U.S. at 301. In contrast, plaintiffs here do not seek to expand the

6 substantive scope of a SSA program or benefit but, rather, seek better notification. They seek

7 forms of notice as easy for them to “read” as print notices are for everyone else.

8

111. To date, the agency has made no attempt to comply with Sections 85.12 or 85.51.

9 It was not until this lawsuit that the agency considered whether Section 85.51 even applied.

10 On motion to dismiss, SSA asserted that its duties under Section 504 were confined by the

11 special-notice provisions enacted by Congress. SSA argued that the special-notice provisions

12 were somehow a “legislative declaration” of the agency’s duties under the Rehabilitation Act.

13 An April 2008 order rejected that argument. Holding that Section 504 trumped the special-notice

14 provisions, the order stated that “Congress intended to improve the notice provided to blind

15 recipients when it passed the special notice provision, not to limit such notice” (Dkt. No. 78

16 at 12).

17

112. Congress amended the Social Security Act to provide blind individuals with the

18 option of receiving a telephone call or certified mail. Notably, Congress also left the door open

19 to a third option and provided for “notification by some alternative procedure established by the

20 Commissioner of Social Security and agreed to by the individual.” 42 U.S.C. 421(l), 1383(l).

21 This shows that Congress recognized that its SNP option would not be effective for everyone.

22

113. While acknowledging that it must provide meaningful access to notices of Social

23 Security programs, SSA has steadfastly refused to expand the alternatives beyond the SNP.

24 SSA contends the SNP already constitutes an “effective” means of communication within the

25 meaning of the regulation. The section-by-section analysis states that the “agency shall honor the

26 [individual’s] choice unless it can demonstrate that another effective means of communication

27 exists or that use of the means chosen would not be required under [Section] 85.51(d).” 53 Fed.

28 Reg. at 25602. True, both the regulation and its section-by-section analysis list “readers” as an

28

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 example of a means of effective communication. 45 C.F.R. 85.3 (listing “readers, Brailled

2 materials, [and] audio recordings” as examples of auxiliary aids); 53 Fed. Reg. at 25602 (naming

3 “readers and audio recordings” as examples of auxiliary aids). According to SSA, agency

4 employees act as “readers” during the supplemental telephone call under the SNP. Significantly,

5 however, neither the regulation nor the section-by-section analysis says that the only useful aid

6 would be a reader. Instead, by listing options in addition to readers, both recognize that other

7 services and devices, such as Braille and audio recordings, might also be useful and provide

8 effective communication.

9

114. In SSA’s defense, it is hard to say that the SNP was not “effective” for at least a

10 large number of blind and visually impaired since it was specifically conceived and imposed by

11 Congress. Presumably Congress acted wisely. But time and the tools available have progressed

12 and the blind and visually impaired have adapted to more modern tools, such as computerized

13 voice synthesizers. The SNP was a reasonable step taken to assist the blind and visually

14 impaired, especially in 1988 and 1990. Since then, great strides have been made in computer-

15 aided assistance for the blind, again such as voice synthesizers and navigation tools that can read

16 and navigate through a document. The availability of a Microsoft Word document on a CD

17 is so much more advanced that a telephone call can no longer be deemed to be as effective as

18 computer-aided synthesizer and navigation tools, as least for the visually impaired who use such

19 tools. Put differently, Congress imposed the SNP as a minimum and expected the agency to add

20 other aids as they became available and practical, just as Congress had already required in

21 Section 504.

22

115. Section 504’s implementing regulations require that the agency take steps to

23 ensure effective communication. No such steps have been taken in the instant case.

24

116. Contrary to Section 85.51(a)(1)(i), SSA has not given primary consideration to the

25 requests of the blind and visually impaired for alternative formats. The section-by-section

26 analysis states that the agency shall provide “an opportunity for individuals with handicaps to

27 request the auxiliary aids of their choice [and] [t]his expressed choice shall be given primary

28 consideration by the agency.” 53 Fed. Reg. at 25602 (emphasis added). That choice should be

29

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 honored unless the agency shows that another effective means of communication exists or that

2 the individual’s requested means of communication would cause an undue financial and

3 administrative burden. Again, agency employees are told that the SNP is the sole remedy

4 available. They are instructed to offer the SNP options in response to an individual’s request

5 for an alternate. Thus, there is no genuine opportunity to make a request, and no consideration

6 is given to the requests that are made. Rather, SSA’s blanket policy is to deny requests. SSA has

7 never undertaken an administrative review of any requests for accommodations. Therefore,

8 plaintiffs are never given any administrative process under Section 85.51. (The only exception

9 to this conclusion concerns the one case file in the San Mateo District Office.)

10

117. Plaintiffs seek to have the agency provide its standard-print notices in alternative

11 formats, such as Braille, large print, audio CD, cassette tape, and e-mail. Notices are not now

12 provided in any of these formats. SSA agrees that the accommodations requested by plaintiffs are

13 at least facially reasonable (Def. Resp. to Pl. Prop. Findings at 34). Depending on the individual,

14 the alternative formats requested by plaintiffs can be effective mechanisms for communication.

15 The blind cannot all be expected to master the same accommodation method. Each must cope in

16 the way best suited to him or her. One size cannot fit all. On the other hand, we cannot expect

17 SSA to supply every conceivable alternative across all blind and visually impaired individuals

18 regardless of the cost. Communications with the blind can never be truly and exactly equal.

19

118. Section 85.51 does not expressly require a format that is “as effective as” that

20 provided to sighted people who can read. To argue otherwise, plaintiffs cite Hayden v. Redwoods

21 Community College District, No. C-05-01785, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 835 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8,

22 2007). The regulation in Hayden explicitly required public entities to “take appropriate steps

23 to ensure that communications [with individuals with disabilities] are as effective as

24 communications with others.” Id. at *24 (quoting 28 C.F.R. 35.160) (emphasis added).

25 In contrast, the regulation here says the agency shall “take steps to ensure effective

26 communication” with individuals with disabilities. 45 C.F.R. 85.51(d) (emphasis added).

27 It further requires that the agency furnish aids that afford “an equal opportunity to participate in,

28 and enjoy the benefits of, program or activity conducted by an agency.” Ibid. (emphasis added).

30

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Significantly, the words “as effective as” are absent from Section 85.51(d). This order recognizes

2 that Section 85.21(b)(1)(iii), on the other hand, says that the agency may not provide an

3 “individual with handicaps with an aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective in affording

4 equal opportunity to obtain the same result . . . .” Section 85.21 (b)(1)(iii) “requires that the

5 opportunity to participate or benefit afforded to an individual with handicaps be as effective as

6 that afforded to others.” 53 Fed. Reg. at 25599 (emphasis added). In any event, regardless of

7 what accommodation is provided, the fact that someone has a sight disability makes it impossible

8 for that person to “read” as effectively as someone who has no disabilities, all other things being

9 equal. This is a fact of life.

10

119. The SNP does not ensure effective communication or equal opportunity “to the

11 maximum extent possible” within the meaning of Section 85.51(d).

12

120. SSA asserts that Section 504 does not require the agency to engage in an

13 individualized inquiry and instead the agency can act by general principle, i.e., by providing the

14 SNP option. The agency has made a similar argument before. Previously arguing against class

15 certification, SSA asserted that because plaintiffs proposed five specific types of

16 accommodations, an individualized inquiry into the specific accommodation for each class

17 member would be required. An order certifying the class disagreed (Dkt. No. 126 at 5–6):

18

What is at issue in this action, and what plaintiffs must prove is

whether the SSA has failed to comply with Section 504 of the

19

Rehabilitation Act and the due process clause. It makes little

difference that plaintiffs here have suggested possible ways in

20

which they believe the SSA could fulfill its purportedly neglected

duties. At the appropriate time (if defendants are found to have

21

neglected their duties under the Rehabilitation Act or the due

process clause), the issue of what type of accommodation should be

22

made [will be addressed]. This order does not expect that this issue

will require an individualized inquiry with respect to each putative

23

class member. For example, class members could be given notice

and a choice of what type of accommodation they would prefer.

24

121. In support of its position, defendant cites Traynor v. Turnage, 485 U.S. 535, 551

25

(1988), and Ward v. Skinner, 943 F.2d 157, 162 (1st Cir. 1991). Both are distinguishable.

26

In Traynor, the Supreme Court stated that

27

[Section 504] does not demand [an individual] inquiry into whether

28

factors other than mental illness rendered an individual veteran’s

drinking so entirely beyond his control as to negate any degree of

31

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

“willfulness” where Congress and the Veterans’ Administration

have reasonably determined for purposes of the veterans’ benefits

2

statutes that no such factors exist.

3 485 U.S. at 551. The First Circuit in Ward interpreted Traynor as holding

4

that an agency, in treating handicapped persons, may sometimes

proceed by way of general rule or principle, at least where (i) the

5

agency behaves reasonably in doing so, (ii) a more individualized

inquiry would impose significant additional burdens upon the

6

agency, and (iii) Congress, as well as the agency, has expressed

some kind of approval of the general rules or principles concerned.

7

943 F.2d at 162. As stated, no individualized inquiry is necessary here.3

8

UNDUE BURDEN DEFENSE

9

122. SSA is not required to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in

10

undue financial and administrative burdens. 45 C.F.R. 85.51(d); see also Southeastern

11

Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 412 (1979). SSA has the burden to show that

12

compliance with Section 504 and Section 85.51 would result in such a burden. But SSA has not

13

carried its burden here. Under Section 85.51(d), the agency is also not required to take any action

14

it can show would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a program or activity. In this

15

action, the agency relies on an undue burden defense, not a “fundamental alteration” defense.

16

123. Section 85.51(d) provides that the agency head or his designee must make a

17

decision that compliance would result in a burden “after considering all agency resources

18

available for use in the funding and operation of the conducted program or activity in question

19

and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion.”

20

Despite this requirement, there is no evidence that there was a consideration of the available

21

22

3 SSA contends plaintiffs have no private right of action to enforce the regulations in this case. The

agency argues that plaintiffs have impermissibly read formal procedural requirements into Section 85.51(a) that
23 are not supported by the regulation’s text or section-by-section analysis. The text of the regulation clearly states

that the “agency shall take appropriate steps,” including “giv[ing] primary consideration” to individuals’
24 requests. 45 C.F.R. 85.51(a)(1). Likewise, the section-by-section analysis, says that “Section 85.51 requires the

agency to take appropriate steps” and “[t]hese steps shall include procedures for determining when auxiliary
25 aids are necessary” and “an opportunity for individuals [] to request the auxiliary aids of their choice.” 53 Fed.

Reg. at 53602. Both the text and analysis clearly require the agency to provide an opportunity for individual to
26 request an auxiliary aid and then to consider that request. See generally Wong v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.,

192 F.3d 807, 818 (9th Cir. 1999) (recognizing a need for the defendant to gather information from the disabled
27 individual to determine what accommodations were necessary). Plaintiffs have shown that this is necessary to

ensure meaningful access. See Mark H. v. Lemahieu, 513 F.3d 922, 93 8n. 14 (9th Cir. 2008). In the instant
28 case, a failure to comply with the regulations promulgated under Section 504 is also a failure to comply with

Section 504. Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286 (U.S. 2001).

32

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 resources. Also, no written statements were ever made, much less by the head of the agency.

2 No determination was made outside this litigation that it would be an undue burden to provide

3 alternative formats. Sad to say, SSA has disregarded the entire Section 85.51(d) procedure.

4 Tellingly, until this lawsuit, SSA believed that Section 504 did not even apply. Rather, SSA’s

5 practice was based solely on its view that it only needed to provide the SNP option.

6

124. As found above, there is already a burden on SSA in providing the telephone call

7 under the SNP. In some instances, particularly when compared to a long notice being read over

8 the telephone, burning a CD or providing Braille alternates would actually save the agency time.

9

125. The agency has not demonstrated that there would be an undue financial and

10 administrative burden to provide a Braille option. SSA already provides some publications in

11 Braille. The agency actually offered Braille notices at one point in the past to recipients.

12 While “[a]n institution’s past decision to make a concession to a disabled individual does not

13 obligate it to continue to grant that accommodation in the future, nor does it render the

14 accommodation reasonable as a matter of law,” it does provide persuasive evidence that the

15 accommodation was reasonable. Wong v. Regents of University of California, 192 F.3d 807,

16 820 (9th Cir. 1999) (stating that the fact that the school previously made the exact modification

17 that the plaintiff requested would be persuasive evidence that the accommodation was

18 reasonable).

19

126. Nor has any undue burden been proven as to providing a Microsoft Word CD as

20 an alternate format option. One of the agency’s own employees has demonstrated how easily this

21 could be done. Karen Sims, a SSA district manager, provided CDs to one of the named plaintiffs

22 for years. These contained the agency’s notices and correspondence to her. Section 504 requires

23 what Sims did — she made an individual one-off accommodation by sending notices in CD form.

24 The agency has not shown that making this option available to all who request it would be unduly

25 burdensome. Providing CDs would be equal to or less than the burden of providing the SNP

26 telephone call in light of the length of time it takes to read the notice verbatim, particularly the

27 boilerplate language and tables. In fact, there is agency testimony that it “would be easy” to burn

28 a CD.

33

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

127. Both the MBR and SSR already have a valid value for Braille. As such, an

2 additional value would only be needed for the CD option. Providing Braille and a CD would not

3 impose undue financial and administrative burdens in excess of what is required by Section 504

4 and Section 85.51.

5

128. As stated, the agency invokes a different section of the Rehabilitation Act.

6 Section 508 provides than an agency’s electronic and information technology must be accessible

7 to the blind and visually impaired. The government already has a duty to comply with

8 Section 508. It would be topsy-turvy for it to refuse to comply with Section 504 because to do

9 so would also require undue-burden compliance with Section 508. Section 508 was enacted

10 to increase the rights of blind and visually impaired individuals, not to decrease their rights.

11 Section 508 itself says that the agency does not have to comply with its provisions if Section 508

12 would impose an undue burden. 29 U.S.C. 794d(a)(1)(A). As such, the existence of Section 508

13 does not support the agency’s undue burden argument.

14

129. Furthermore, when directly asked about the possibility of providing individuals

15 with a CD on it, Mr. Baker conceded it could be done. The Court asked Mr. Baker about this at

16 trial (Tr. 959:25–960:19):

17

THE COURT: But why can’t we give blind people a CD that they

can stick in their computer so Window-Eyes can read the table?

18

*

*

*

19

What is the answer to this? Can we solve this problem? How hard

20

is it to solve?

21

THE WITNESS: We can solve this problem with a combination

of technology and manual intervention. And that’s the way we’d

22

solve it today. Okay. I am not saying that we can’t solve the

problem. I’m saying that there is not a fully automated solution that

23

will do it for us. And that because we have a very high volume of

notices to deal with, we have to look at how we can solve the

24

problem efficiently.

25

130. With respect to the requested alternate formats, the agency has not provided any

26 estimates of the costs of implementation. It is mere speculation that the suggested

27 accommodations would be costly and therefore burdensome. There is no credible evidence that it

28 would be unduly burdensome to offer Braille for those who request it. Likewise, there is no

34

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 evidence that providing a CD option would be any more expensive than regularly providing SNP

2 options.

3

131. Contrary to the agency, a major system overhaul would not be required. The input

4 systems were previously changed to provide for Braille. This shows that changes can be made.

5 There has been no showing that the system changes would be an undue burden. Change must be

6 carefully done, of course, but the system has been changed before and the agency is trained to do

7 it. The changes needed to provide Braille and a CD require only small low-impact changes to the

8 systems.

9

132. With respect to the burden, the government has assumed worst-case scenarios and

10 the worst set of assumptions. SSA has invented worst-case hypothetical nightmare burdens, but it

11 has not done a realistic assessment of what would really be needed, e.g, no “risk assessment” has

12 been done. The entire defense has been to exaggerate what relief might be ordered and to invent

13 multiple excuses why the alternates cannot be done rather than find one reason why any could be

14 done. At all events, the agency has not shown there is an undue burden regarding some of the

15 alternative formats. This order, therefore, concludes that at least Braille and data CDs with

16 Microsoft Word would be feasible and effective for many, and not unduly burdensome.

17

133. Audio cassettes are now passe and will not be ordered on a class-wide systematic

18 basis. Large print is too burdensome and those with low vision can read existing notices with

19 magnifying glasses or other home tools and/or will be able to benefit from the CD relief that is

20 ordered. Email would be very handy but the risk of personal identifiable information being stolen

21 is too great. It would be too easy for criminals to send phony emails to class members and trick

22 them into providing their personal identifiable information. Contrary to plaintiffs’ counsel, no

23 federal agency today sends emails to beneficiaries and recipients. These forms of relief will not

24 be ordered on a class-wide basis but this will be without prejudice to individuals making

25 individual requests therefore pursuant to Section 85.51. If an individual receives an alternate

26 form of relief under this order, then the agency should not have to also call and read the notice to

27 them verbatim under the SNP. Otherwise, it would be a double burden on the agency.

28

35

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

134. The Court realizes that this order does not grant all of the menu of

2 accommodations sought by the class representatives. The entire list has not yet been shown to be

3 feasible or necessary in light of the relief granted above. To order the full menu of alternatives to

4 be supplied on a system-wide basis is unwarranted. Braille will cover most older recipients and

5 recipients blind from birth. A Microsoft Word CD will cover recipients with access to computers.

6 These two groups overlap and it is highly likely that one alternative or the other (or both) will

7 satisfy the vast majority of blind and visually impaired individuals, not to mention those that will

8 prefer the SNP. The agency has offered Braille in the past and has supplied Microsoft Word CDs

9 in the past. It can do so on a system-wide basis without undue burden. Once these are in place, it

10 seems highly probable that there will be an effective alternative for all blind and visually impaired

11 individuals. Even Section 504 does not require an agency to supply a menu of alternatives longer

12 and wider than necessary to supply at least one effective alternative.

13

135. The Court is confident that the Microsoft Word CD and Braille alternatives, taken

14 together with the existing SNP, will provide the vast majority of class members a choice of an

15 “effective means of communication.” 53 Fed. Reg. at 25602. In the event that these alternatives

16 are not effective for an individual, he or she may request that the agency provide an individual

17 accommodation.

18

DUE PROCESS

19

136. The next question is whether the mailing of SSA’s standard-print notices violates

20 due process under the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the United States from depriving any

21 person of property without due process. Individuals whose property interests are at stake are

22 entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard. Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 167

23 (2002).

24

137. The parties dispute which standard applies to the due process challenge herein.

25 Plaintiffs argue that Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), supplies the appropriate test while

26 defendants argue that the applicable standard is found in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank &

27 Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950).

28

36

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

138. For the sake of argument, this order accepts plaintiffs’ version. Even so, this order

2 finds that plaintiffs have not proven a class-wide violation of due process.

3

139. The due process standard under Mathews requires consideration of three factors:

4

First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action;

second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through

5

the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or

substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s

6

interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and

administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural

7

requirement would entail.

8 424 U.S. at 335. Mathews involved SSA. Mathews identified the sole private interest at stake as

9 being the uninterrupted receipt of benefits pending a final administrative decision because a

10 recipient whose benefits are terminated receives full retroactive relief if he ultimately prevails.

11 After evaluating the three factors, the Supreme Court concluded that the agency’s administrative

12 procedures fully comported with due process in Mathews.

13

140. Here, the subject of notices range from suspension or termination of benefits to

14 general information such as SSA rules governing benefit programs. For notices with general

15 information, the potential deprivation of an interest is low. With respect to suspension or

16 termination of benefits, the potential injury is greater. Regarding the second factor — the risk of

17 an erroneous deprivation of benefits through the procedures used — SSA’s procedure of sending

18 notices under the SNP is fair and reliable. Notices that deal with a decision affecting benefits are

19 covered under the SNP. As stated, when a person elects the telephone option, the notice is not

20 only sent by mail but also followed up with an agency employee calling to read the notice.

21 Any risk of deprivation is also ameliorated through the good-cause policy in which plaintiffs

22 may usually be granted a good-cause waiver on the basis of their blindness to file a late appeal

23 regarding a deprivation of their benefits. Furthermore, as stated, there is only limited and

24 anecdotal evidence that any class members have lost benefits after SNP notice. While receipt of

25 benefits is very important, recipients are already accorded substantial procedural protection.

26 The recipient is given at least two forms of notice and an opportunity to be heard. As to the third

27 factor, this order has addressed the “burdens” that the government claims would be involved

28 and concluded that while there may be a burden there is not evidence of a substantial burden.

37

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Taking the three factors into account, the balance weighs in favor of finding that due process is

2 provided — even under Mathews. At a minimum, it can be said that plaintiffs have not shown a

3 deprivation of due process on a class-wide basis.

4

141. On the other hand, extreme individualized instances may occur from time to time

5 in which someone is denied due process because of unique facts and circumstances that cannot be

6 adjudicated on a class-wide basis. The denial of the class-wide due process claim is without

7 prejudice to such an individualized case.

8

RELIEF GRANTED

9

With respect to the scope of relief, a district judge would ordinarily consider remanding

10 the issue of systematic relief to the agency so that it could pursue system-wide rulemaking in

11 the first instance. The litigation posture taken by SSA herein militates decidedly against this

12 approach, however. Back in 2008, after an order ruled against SSA on whether Section 504

13 applied to the problem at hand, the Court invited both sides to comment on which of four

14 alternatives should be pursued (Dkt. No. 78 at 12–13):

15

1. Actively continue litigating this case under

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, decide the issue of class

16

certification, and determine the scope of relief, if any.

17

2. Stay the proceedings of the case so that the agency

can engage in rulemaking or pursue other agency action in light of

18

the ruling on the merits made herein. This course would require

that the agency concede the correctness of this ruling on the merits.

19

The Court would maintain jurisdiction to review any rule or policy

subsequently adopted.

20

3. Remand the action to the agency for rulemaking or

21

other agency action. This would also require that the agency

concede the correctness of this ruling on the merits. This course,

22

however, might be problematic because there seems to be no

affirmative agency action forming the predicate for original

23

subject-matter jurisdiction.

24

4. Certify this order for interlocutory review under

28 U.S.C. 1292(b) and stay all proceedings.

25

Both sides, including SSA, requested that the litigation continue with a decision on the merits.

26

Having spurned the opportunity for a stay pending rulemaking, the agency has, in effect,

27

consented to resolve the case by litigation, not rulemaking. The agency has litigated the entirety

28

38

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 of the issues under Section 504 and Section 85.51, including the question of undue burden as to

2 the proposed alternatives at trial.

3

For the same reason, this order will not merely order the agency to henceforth comply

4 with Section 85.51 (the provision allowing individuals to ask the agency for an accommodation

5 in the form of communications). SSA has spurned that opportunity and chosen to litigate on a

6 class-wide basis. Moreover, until this litigation was underway, the agency refused to even

7 acknowledge that it was obligated to follow Section 504, routinely denying individual requests

8 for accommodation. In this litigation, it has been quick to find lame excuses for noncompliance

9 but exceedingly slow to favor accommodations. To merely order the agency to comply with

10 Section 85.51 would lead to more lame excuses with no accommodations. Since the agency has

11 chosen to litigate this case on a class-wide basis, this order will require relief on a class-wide

12 basis. Consequently, the following relief is ordered:

13

1. For all notices and other communications with blind and visually impaired and

14 Title II and Title XVI recipients and authorized representatives, defendants shall develop and

15 shall offer a Braille alternative and a navigable Microsoft Word CD alternative no later than

16 APRIL 15, 2010.

17

2. By DECEMBER 31, 2009, defendants shall provide notice to all recipients and

18 authorized persons shown in its records to be blind or visually impaired:

19

(a) advising of the availability of the foregoing new alternatives and

20

giving them an opportunity to elect one of the two above alternatives with an

21

effective date of APRIL 15, 2010. The notice should advise that selection of one of

22

the two alternatives would discontinue any special notice previously selected

23

under the special notice policy, i.e., that the recipient would not be entitled to both

24

a SNP notice as well as a new alternative. The newest alternatives, to the extent

25

selected, would relieve the agency of the burden of making the SNP notice and, to

26

that extent, would be less burdensome on the agency; and

27

(b) advising that the blind and visually impaired are individually

28

entitled to ask defendants to provide any other alternative accommodation

39

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

preferred by said individual. The notice shall describe the Section 85.51 procedure

2

and fully comply with its duty to advise as to rights. This order is without

3

prejudice to future relief to any individual pursuant to any such individual request

4

pursuant to Section 85.51 and the agency is hereby ordered to comply in good faith

5

with Section 85.51.

6

3. In addition to the notice required by Paragraph 2, defendants shall make an

7 appropriate announcement on its website and shall train its staff dealing with the blind and

8 visually impaired to communicate orally the notice described above when such individuals call

9 in, email in, or write in, all to be effective by APRIL 15, 2010. The Court realizes that there will

10 be some blind and visually impaired recipients whose impairment will not be noted in the

11 records and thus those individuals will not receive the mailed notice required by above.

12 Those individuals, however, may learn of the expanded options via the website and/or through

13 telephone communications. This order finds that more expansive dissemination of the written

14 notice would not be worth the incremental financial burden. The American Council of the Blind

15 is hereby requested to give appropriate notice of the relief ordered herein to as many blind and

16 visually impaired individuals as feasible through its website and publications. The Court finds

17 that in due course everyone with a need to know the change will be fully informed.

18

4. By NOVEMBER 25, 2009, defendants shall file a specific description of the Braille

19 and Microsoft Word CD it proposes to offer, the specific form of notice, and its specific plan of

20 dissemination. It shall also spell out a systematic plan for receiving and ruling on requests for

21 accommodation under Section 85.51. By DECEMBER 4, 2009, both sides shall meet-and-confer

22 in person on the adequacy of the proposal as well as on the form of notice and manner of

23 dissemination. Any objection must be filed by DECEMBER 18, 2009, and any response thereto

24 by DECEMBER 29, 2009. A hearing shall be held if needed.

25

5. By APRIL 16, 2010, defendants must file a certificate of compliance under oath

26 stating in detail what was done to comply with this order.

27

6. After APRIL 16, 2010, no social security benefits may be reduced or terminated to

28 any individual shown in the SSA records to be blind or visually impaired (or whose authorized

40

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 payee is shown to be blind or visually impaired) unless such person was first provided with the

2 notice prescribed above and the method of notice, if any, selected by said person was followed.

3

7. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce this order, including to monitor

4 whether it is complying with its duties under Section 85.51.

5

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

8 Dated: October 20, 2009. 9

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

41

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8

9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

10 AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, a District

11

of Columbia non-profit corporation, TAMMY RENEE COOPER, SCARLETT MILES,

12

MARVELENA QUESADA, ARLENE DOHERTY, ALICE MARJORIE DONOVAN, BILLIE JEAN

13

KEITH, GEORGE P. SMITH, and DOROTHY JACKSON on behalf of themselves and all others

14 similarly situated,

15

Plaintiffs,

No. C 05-04696 WHA
CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER

16

v.

17

MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, in his official capacity,

18 and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

19

Defendants.

/

20

21

INTRODUCTION

22

In this disability-rights action, plaintiffs move for class certification. For the reasons

23 stated below, plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

24

STATEMENT

25

Plaintiffs are ten visually impaired individuals and the American Council for the Blind,

26 a national membership organization of visually impaired persons. Each individual plaintiff

27 receives some kind of Social Security benefit, either through the Old-Age, Survivors, and

28 Disability Insurance (“OASDI”) program or the Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”)

program. Two of the named plaintiffs are representative payees. One receives payments for a

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 minor child who receives auxiliary benefits under the OASDI program. The other

2 representative payee receives payments from the SSI program for a child with a developmental

3 disability.

4

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of similarly situated persons who receive or are

5 applying for benefits through: (1) the OASDI program on the basis of earnings history;

6 (2) the SSI program on the basis on the basis of financial need and either age, blindness, or

7 other disability; (3) the Special Veterans Benefits (“SVB”) program on the basis of financial

8 need, age, World War II veteran status, and residence outside the United States; or (4) the Low

9 Income Subsidy program under the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Benefit plan.

10

This action was brought to compel the Social Security Administration to provide

11 alternative formats of communication that would enable the putative class to have equal access

12 to participate in SSA programs. Plaintiffs assert claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

13 Act and the due process clause. According to the complaint, defendants “have and continue to

14 discriminate unlawfully against the named plaintiffs and the class members by failing to

15 communicate with plaintiffs and the class members in an accessible format” in violation of

16 Section 504 (SAC ¶ 121). The complaint further alleges that defendants’ failure to

17 communicate in an accessible format denies plaintiffs “adequate notice and an opportunity to be

18 heard” regarding their Social Security benefits (a protected property interest) in violation of the

19 due process clause. The alternative formats of communications suggested by plaintiffs include

20 Braille, a large print, electronic mail, computer disk, and audiotape recording (id. at ¶ 3).

21 Plaintiffs request declaratory relief and a permanent injunction regarding the agency’s duties to

22 provide information in accessible formats.

23

Plaintiffs now move for class certification. They seek to certify the following

24 nationwide class:

25

Individuals with visual impairments that substantially limit the

major life activity of seeing who require that materials be in an

26

accessible format in order to participate in programs and activities

implemented by the SSA as applicants, beneficiaries, recipients,

27

and representative payees.

28 The class purportedly consists of approximately three million persons.

2

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

ANALYSIS

2

1.

CLASS DEFINITION.

3

As an initial matter, defendants contend that plaintiffs’ proposed class definition is

4 uncertain and overbroad and that plaintiffs have no standing to sue on behalf of many of the

5 putative class members included within the definition. “A class definition should be precise,

6 objective, and presently ascertainable.” O’Connor v. Boeing North American, Inc., 184 F.R.D.

7 311, 319 (C.D. Cal. 1998).1 Defendants contend the class is insufficiently defined because it

8 does not indicate which “programs and activities” it proposes to encompass. This order agrees.

9 The Social Security Act provides for a wide variety of programs besides those at issue here.

10 42 U.S.C. 301–1397jj. Plaintiffs’ language of “programs and activities” only invites confusion

11 and ambiguity. Plaintiffs have also given no real justification why such language is necessary.

12 Accordingly, the class definition should be narrowed to only those programs which plaintiffs

13 seek to compel action.

14

Defendants next challenge plaintiffs’ proposed inclusion of the LIS and SVB programs

15 on two grounds: (i) plaintiffs lack standing to compel action with respect to the LIS and SVB

16 programs and (ii) the representative plaintiffs’ claims are not typical of those of the participants

17 in the LIS and SVB programs. Significantly, no representative plaintiff participates in either

18 program. Plaintiffs respond that “the named representatives have the same interest as class

19 members who receive the LIS or SVB in receiving materials in an accessible format, and are

20 threatened with similar harm — the loss of benefits and personal privacy” (Reply Br. 3–4).

21 Even if the representative plaintiffs share some interest with beneficiaries of the LIS and SVB

22 programs, the Court is reluctant to extend the representative plaintiffs’ responsibility to programs

23 for which they have no direct connection. Therefore, the Court finds that the named plaintiffs’

24 claims are not sufficiently typical. The LIS and SVB programs will thus be excluded from the

25 class.

26

27

28
1 Unless indicated otherwise, internal citations are omitted from all quoted authorities.

3

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2.

LEGAL STANDARD FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION.

2

In determining whether class certification is appropriate, “the question is not whether

3 the plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather,

4 whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met.” Eisen v Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156,

5 177–78 (1974). Although a district judge may not investigate the likelihood of prevailing on the

6 merits, he or she is at liberty to consider evidence relating to the merits if such evidence also

7 goes to the requirements of Rule 23. The party seeking class certification bears the burden of

8 showing that each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one of the requirements of

9 Rule 23(b) are met. See Hanon v. Data Products Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508–09 (9th Cir. 1992).

10

For a named plaintiff to obtain class certification, the district court must find:

11 (1) numerosity of the class; (2) common questions of law or fact predominate; (3) the named

12 plaintiff’s claims and defenses are typical; and (4) the named plaintiff can adequately protect

13 the interests of the class. In addition, in the instant case, plaintiffs seek to certify both classes

14 under Rule 23(b)(2). Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) requires that “the party opposing the

15 class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making

16 appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as

17 a whole . . . .”

18

Defendants here only challenge the commonality requirement and as a result request that

19 a subclass be broken out from plaintiffs’ proposed class. This order will thus address the

20 commonality requirement first.

21

A. Commonality.

22

A class has sufficient commonality under Rule 23(a)(2) if “there are questions of law or

23 fact which are common to the class.” Rule 23(a)(2) does not require each member in a class to

24 have identical factual and legal issues surrounding their claim. “The existence of shared legal

25 issues with divergent factual predicates is sufficient” to meet the requirements of Rule 23(a)(2).”

26 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998).

27

Defendants contend that commonality is defeated on twp separate grounds: (1) plaintiffs’

28 five proposed accommodations would require an individualized inquiry for each putative class

4

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 member; (2) the circumstances surrounding benefits paid to representative payees are

2 fundamentally different than the remaining putative class members;

3

(1) The Five Proposed Accommodations.

4

Defendants first argue that because plaintiffs have proposed five specific types of

5 accommodations that the SSA could implement — i.e., Braille, large print, electronic mail,

6 computer disks, and audio recordings — that an individualized inquiry into the specific

7 accommodation needed for each particular putative class member would have to be made.2

8 As defendants put it (Opp. 9):

9

Plaintiffs are not simply asking the Court to determine that SSA’s

policies constitute a denial of meaningful access, and then

10

allowing SSA to determine an appropriate remedy. Instead,

plaintiffs are specifically asking the Court to require SSA to

11

provide benefits information in at least five specific formats:

Braille, large print, electronic mail, computer disks, and audio

12

recordings. Rather than allow SSA the first opportunity to

determine what accommodations it will offer, plaintiffs are in

13

essence asking the Court to engage in an individualized analysis of

the circumstances of each member of the class and to resolve

14

exactly what SSA is required to do to accommodate each

individual.

15

In reply, plaintiffs state (Reply Br. 5–6):

16

Plaintiffs are not asking the Court to conduct individualized

17

inquiries, but are seeking SSA’s compliance with its own

Section 504 procedures. Plaintiffs’ identification of various types

18

of alternative formats (such as Braille, audio recordings, electronic

mail, large print format, and computer discs) illustrates that

19

“effective communication” to the class may require the use of

common auxiliary aids. However, the issue in this case is not

20

whether each type of auxiliary aid is provided but rather, whether

SSA is failing to meet its obligations under Section 504 to provide

21

“effective communications” to all blind and visually impaired

program participants.

22

This order agrees with plaintiffs. What is at issue in this action, and what plaintiffs must prove,

23

is whether the SSA has failed to comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the due

24

process clause. It makes little difference that plaintiffs here have suggested possible ways in

25

which they believe the SSA could fulfill its purportedly neglected duties. At the appropriate

26

time (if defendants’ are found to have neglected their duties under the Rehabilitation Act or the

27

28

2 Significantly, the five accommodations proposed by plaintiffs are taken verbatim from the

Department of Health and Human Service’s regulations. See 45 C.F.R. 85.3.

5

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 due process clause), the issue of what type of accommodation should be made. This order does

2 not expect that this issue will require an individualized inquiry with respect to each putative class

3 member. For example, class members could be given notice and a choice of what type of

4 accommodation they would prefer.

5

The decisions cited by defendants only reinforce that commonality is satisfied.

6 In Davis v. Astrue, 2008 WL 1944134 (N.D. Cal. 2008), Judge Marilyn Patel of this district

7 considered a putative class of mentally disabled beneficiaries who alleged the SSA’s policies

8 violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. There, the defendants made the same argument

9 as is made here:

10

Defendant asserts that this action requires individualized

determinations based on the specific disabilities of each potential

11

class member. Defendant claims that the allegations in this action

are different from those in which a uniform response could be

12

derived because “meaningful access” is an inquiry that must look

at each individual’s level of or lack of access.

13

Id. at *10. The court rejected this argument, finding:

14

Plaintiff, however, brought this action as a facial challenge to

15

the SSA’s policies and procedures surrounding determinations

of “substantial gainful work activity” and benefits terminations

16

for mentally disabled beneficiaries. Plaintiff asserts that SSA's

policies and procedures in making these determinations result in

17

violations of the Rehabilitation Act. Defendant’s arguments

that “meaningful access” under the Rehabilitation Act must be

18

determined on a case-by-case basis are inapposite because

plaintiff is not asserting that the individual application of the

19

policies is in violation. . . . While defendant is correct that the

individuals in the proposed class have unique medical

20

conditions that would impact the type of individualized

response required by Section 504, that response is outside the

21

scope of what plaintiff seeks from this action. Plaintiff seeks a

declaratory judgment and injunctive relief regarding defendant’s

22

policies that allegedly violate Section 504 and discriminate

against mentally disabled beneficiaries.

23

Id. at 10–11. Plaintiffs here seek much the same. That is, a declaratory judgment and injunctive

24

relief regarding the SSA’s disclosure policies for blind individuals.

25

Similarly, in Xiufang Situ v. Leavitt, 240 F.R.D. 551 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (Henderson, T.),

26

the court certified a nationwide class consisting of beneficiaries with dual eligibility under both

27

Medicare and Medicaid programs who alleged system-wide problems with their enrollment

28

under the Medicare Part D program. In so doing, the court held, “it is sufficient for plaintiffs to

6

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 allege that defendant has failed to take action — i.e., failed to implement a practice or policy-that

2 satisfies his obligations” to satisfy the commonality requirement. Id. at 560–61. The court later

3 rejected the defendants’ arguments that an individualized inquiry into each specific class

4 member would have to be made:

5

Plaintiffs do not seek such individualized relief. Instead, plaintiffs

ask the Court to order defendant to comply with his statutory

6

obligations regarding implementation of the Part D program for

dual eligibles. If plaintiffs were to prevail on the merits, the Court

7

would not need to engage in individualized inquiries regarding

which class members have been denied benefits. Indeed, rather

8

than seeking awards for damages or retroactive benefits plaintiffs’

complaint seeks injunctive relief . . . .

9

Id. at 563. Defendants here have essentially mischaracterized plaintiffs’ requested relief in an

10

attempt to defeat commonality. But the fact remains that this action is a challenge to the SSA’s

11

policies regarding its disclosures to blind individuals. Such disclosure is common across the

12

class.

13

(2) The Representative Payees.

14

A representative payee is an individual or organization that receives benefits for someone

15

who cannot manage or direct the management of his or her money. Defendants claim that

16

inclusion of representative payees in the class is inappropriate because: (i) they would be

17

required to offer different evidence to satisfy a prima facie case under Section 504 and (ii) the

18

defense of undue burden is stronger against representative payees than the rest of the putative

19

class. With respect to the first issue, defendants emphasize that in order to properly state a

20

Section 504 claim, a plaintiff must show that he or she meets the “eligibility requirements” of

21

the program. Because the eligibility requirements for representative payees are different than

22

those for direct beneficiaries, defendants maintain in a rather conclusory fashion that

23

certification should be denied. Defendants have made no attempt, however, to show exactly how

24

different the eligibility requirements are or why any such difference would practically matter

25

here. Without such analysis and given the overwhelmingly common issue of adequacy of

26

disclosure prevalent across the class, it is difficult to see why representative payees should be

27

excluded from this action entirely. Any legitimate difference would only advise treating the

28

representative payees as a separate class.

7

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

The next issue raised by defendants is undue burden. To succeed on their

2 Section 504 claim, plaintiffs must show that the requested accommodations are reasonable.

3 An “[a]ccommodation is not reasonable if it either imposes ‘undue financial and administrative

4 burdens [on the program] or requires ‘a fundamental alteration in the nature of [the] program.’”

5 School Bd. of Nassau County, Fla. v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 287 n.17 (1987)(quoting Se. Cmty.

6 Coll. v. Davis, 442 U.S. 410, 410–12, (1979). Defendants maintain that while the direct

7 beneficiary system does have the capacity to track a member’s disability (e.g., blindness),

8 “the representative payee system currently lacks the capacity to track whether a representative

9 payee is blind or visually impaired . . .” (Opp. 17). Again, this issue only advises treating the

10 representative payees as their own separate class — not excluding them from this action entirely.

11

Accordingly, the representative payees will be treated as their own separate class.

12

B. Numerosity.

13

The numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) is satisfied when joinder of individual

14 plaintiffs would be impracticable. While plaintiffs need not allege the exact number or identity

15 of class members, mere speculation of the number of class members involved does not satisfy

16 the requirement of Rule 23(a)(1). See Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 240 F.R.D. 627, 637

17 (N.D. Cal. 2007). The proposed class here is allegedly in the millions (SAC ¶ 20).

18 Defendants do not dispute that the numerosity requirement has been satisfied. Accordingly, this

19 order finds that plaintiffs have met their burden required by Rule 23(a)(1).3

20

C. Typicality.

21

The typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied when “the claims or defenses of

22 the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” A plaintiff’s claims

23 are typical if they “are reasonably co-extensive with those of absent class members; they need

24 not be substantially identical.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020.

25

26
3 Defendants contend in their briefing that if the representative payees are treated as a separate class
27 that they do not satisfy the numerosity requirement. Not so. While plaintiffs have not proffered the exact
number of representative payees that would be a part of the class, they have satisfied their burden to show the
28 class is sufficiently numerous. According to plaintiffs’ statistical analysis, the number of representative payees
in the putative class is in the hundreds. Defense counsel admitted as much at the hearing on this motion.

8

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

Here, each of the ten named plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the class. All, except the

2 American Council for the Blind, are visually impaired. Eight are direct beneficiaries of benefits

3 and two are representative payees. Like the other putative class members, each allege that

4 defendants discriminate unlawfully by their failure to provide communications regarding

5 benefits in accessible formats. Typicality has been satisfied.

6

D. Adequacy.

7

The last hurdle of Rule 23(a) is that “the representative parties will fairly and adequately

8 protect the interests of the class.” Determining whether the representative parties adequately

9 represent a class involves two inquiries: (1) does the named plaintiff and counsel have any

10 conflicts of interest with other class members and (2) will the named plaintiff and his or her

11 counsel act vigorously on behalf of the class? See Lerwill v. Inflight Motion Pictures, Inc., 582

12 F.2d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 1978). The adequacy inquiry under Rule 23(a)(4) serves to uncover

13 conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent. “[A] class

14 representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury’

15 as the class members.” East Tex. Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403

16 (1977).

17

Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden. Significantly, this action is brought to compel

18 action on behalf of the SSA — no monetary damages are sought. The potential for any conflict

19 or collusion is therefore minimal. Plaintiffs have also shown that their counsel are qualified and

20 will act vigorously and in the best interests of the class. Defendants have not contested

21 adequacy.

22

E. Injunctive and Declaratory Relief.

23

In addition to the four requirements of Rule 23(a), plaintiffs must satisfy one of the

24 requirements of Rule 23(b). Here, plaintiffs rely on Rule 23(b)(2). That rule requires that “the

25 party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class,

26 thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with

27 respect to the class as a whole . . . .” “It is sufficient if class members complain of a pattern or

28 practice that is generally applicable to the class as a whole” to satisfy Rule 23(b)(2). “Even if

9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 some class members have not been injured by the challenged practice, a class may nevertheless

2 be appropriate.” Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1047 (9th Cir. 1998). Civil rights cases

3 against parties charged with class-based discrimination are “prime examples” of actions certified

4 under Rule 23(b)(2). Amchen Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 614 (1997).

5

Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate here. Defendants’ alleged discriminatory

6 practices apply to the class as a whole and plaintiffs seek injunctive relief accordingly.

7

Accordingly, this order hereby certifies the following two classes:

8

Individuals with visual impairments that substantially limit the

major life activity of seeing who require that materials be in an

9

accessible format in order to participate in the Social Security

Administration’s Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance

10

program or the Supplemental Social Security Income program as

applicants, beneficiaries, or recipients, but not as representative

11

payees with the class representatives being Tammy Renee Cooper,

Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, Alice

12

Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Dorothy

Jackson, Mary Ann Alexander, and Laura M. Russell.

13

*

*

*

14

Individuals with visual impairments that substantially limit the

15

major life activity of seeing who require that materials be in an

accessible format in order to participate in the Social Security

16

Administration’s Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance

program or the Supplemental Social Security Income program as

17

representative payees with the class representatives being Mary

Ann Alexander and Laura Russell.

18

3. NOTICE.

19

When a class is certified under Rule 23(b)(2), there is no requirement that absent class

20

members receive notice or be given an opportunity to opt out of the lawsuit. Equal Employment

21

Opportunity Comm’n v. General Tel. Co., 599 F.2d 322, 334 (9th Cir. 1979). The district court

22

instead has the discretion to decide whether or not to order notice. Molski v. Gleich, 318 F.3d

23

937, 952 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiffs contend that notice need not be sent to class members.

24

This order disagrees. Within TWENTY CALENDER DAYS, the parties are requested to jointly

25

submit a form notice that advises class members, among other things, of their rights to:

26

intervene in this action, submit comments, and contact class counsel, as well as a plan for

27

dissemination. The reason for requesting notice is that the issues of potential relief involved are

28

10

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 important to class members and the Court desires to have the maximum input possible from the

2 class.

3

CONCLUSION

4

For the reasons stated above, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is GRANTED IN

5 PART AND DENIED IN PART.

6

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

9 Dated: September 11, 2008. 10

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

9

10

AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, a District of Columbia non-profit corporation, TAMMY

11

RENEE COOPER, SCARLETT MILES, MARVELENA QUESADA, ARLENE DOHERTY,

12

ALICE MARJORIE DONOVAN, BILLIE JEAN KEITH, GEORGE P. SMITH, and DOROTHY

13

JACKSON on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

14

Plaintiffs,

15

v.

16 MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social

17

Security Administration, in his official capacity, and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

18

Defendants.

19

/

No. C 05-04696 WHA
ORDER DENYING RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS

20

INTRODUCTION

21

In this disability-rights action, the Court previously denied defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6)

22 motion to dismiss in part and postponed resolution of all other issues concerning the merits of

23 plaintiffs’ claims. This order DENIES defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ due process

24 claims.

25

STATEMENT

26

Plaintiffs are eight visually impaired individuals and the American Council for the

27 Blind, a national membership organization of visually impaired persons. Each individual

28 plaintiff receives some kind of Social Security benefit, either through the Old-Age, Survivors,

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 and Disability Insurance (“OASDI”) program, the Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”)

2 program, or both. At the time the complaint was filed, one of these plaintiffs (Dorothy Jackson)

3 was also a representative payee for her husband, an SSI recipient. Plaintiffs seek to represent a

4 class of similarly situated persons.

5

Plaintiffs assert claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and claims under the

6 due process clause. Defendants previously moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims for lack of

7 subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. An order dated April 23, 2008, denied

8 defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that:

9 (i) plaintiffs’ claims were not subject to the jurisdictional bar of Section 405(h) of the Social

10 Security Act; (ii) a private right of action for equitable relief under Section 504 of the

11 Rehabilitation Act exists under Ninth Circuit precedent; and (iii) jurisdiction was therefore

12 proper under 28 U.S.C. 1331. In addition, the order denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for

13 failure to state a claim with respect to plaintiffs’ Rehabilitation Act claims but did not reach the

14 legal sufficiency of plaintiffs’ due process claims.

15

Further details concerning the history of this case can be found in the order dated

16 April 23, 2008.

17

ANALYSIS

18

1. RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION.

19

A. Legal Standard.

20

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests for the legal sufficiency of the claims

21 alleged in the complaint. See Parks Sch. of Business v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484

22 (9th Cir. 1995). All material allegations of the complaint are taken as true and construed in the

23 light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 340

24 (9th Cir. 1996). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not

25 need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his

26 ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of

27 the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right

28

2

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Court. 1955,

2 1964–65 (2007).1

3

B. Due Process Claims.

4

The complaint alleges that defendants’ failure to communicate with plaintiffs in an

5 accessible format denies plaintiffs “adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard” regarding

6 their Social Security benefits (a protected property interest) in violation of the due process

7 clause. Defendants assert that its notice policy “satisfies minimum Fifth Amendment due

8 process requirements because it is ‘reasonably calculated’ to apprise blind participants” of any

9 determination affecting their Social Security benefits (Br. 23).

10

Liberally construing the complaint, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that the

11 agency provides sufficient notice under the due process clause. Significant factual disputes

12 exist between the parties. For example, the parties dispute whether the agency extends the

13 special notice policy to all blind or visually impaired recipients of Social Security benefits or

14 only to those participants who receive benefits based on blindness.2 Moreover, plaintiffs

15 contend that the agency does not provide the special notice options on a consistent basis.

16 Indeed, defendants concede that these factual issues “cannot be resolved on this Rule 12(b)(6)

17 motion to dismiss” (Reply Br. 15).

18

The parties disagree over which test provides the appropriate legal standard for

19 determining whether the notice provided to plaintiffs is sufficient under the due process clause.

20 Plaintiffs argue that Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), applies while defendants

21 contend that Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950), provides the

22 proper test. This order need not reach the issue of which standard applies because plaintiffs

23 have alleged facts that, if true, could entitle them to relief under either standard. Defendants’

24 motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED.

25

26
1 Internal citations have been omitted unless otherwise indicated.
27
2 On its face, the special notice policy applies only to participants who receive benefits based on
28 blindness.

3

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2.

REPRESENTATIVE PAYEES.

2

The Court takes notice that plaintiff Dorothy Jackson, the sole representative payee

3 named in the complaint, ceased performing this role on September 26, 2007. As a result,

4 Ms. Jackson has standing as a recipient of Social Security benefits but no longer has standing as

5 a representative payee. Plaintiffs will have until June 12, 2008, to seek leave to add any new

6 parties.

7

CONCLUSION

8

For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ due process

9 claims is DENIED.

10

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

13 Dated: May 13, 2008. 14

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

 
 Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 368 Filed 01/22/10 Page 1 of 7

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8

9

10 AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, a

11

District of Columbia non-profit corporation, SCARLETT MILES, MARVELENA

12

QUESADA, ARLENE DOHERTY, ALICE MARJORIE DONOVAN, BILLIE JEAN

13

KEITH, GEORGE P. SMITH, MARY ANN ALEXANDER, AND LAURA M. RUSSELL

14

on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

No. C 05–4696 WHA
CLASS ACTION
ORDER AMENDING COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE AND VACATING HEARING

15

Plaintiffs,

16

v.

17 MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner of

18

Social Security Administration, in his official capacity, and SOCIAL SECURITY

19 ADMINISTRATION,

20

Defendants.

/

21

22

INTRODUCTION

23

In this class action involving blind and visually impaired social security beneficiaries and

24 their rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to receive notices and communications

25 from the Social Security Administration (SSA) in Braille and Microsoft Word formats, defendants

26 move to amend the implementation schedule governing the relief ordered by the Court. Class

27 counsel do not oppose defendants’ proposed amendments (Dkt. No. 366 at 2). For the reasons set

28 forth below, defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 368 Filed 01/22/10 Page 2 of 7

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

STATEMENT

2

On October 20, 2009, following a bench trial held in September 2009, the undersigned

3 entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, requiring SSA

4 to provide blind and visually impaired beneficiaries, recipients, and representative payees in the

5 Title II and Title XVI benefits programs with the option of receiving notices and communications

6 in Braille and navigable Microsoft Word CD formats (Dkt. No. 323). Various implementation

7 milestones, as well as a final compliance deadline of April 15, 2010, were set forth therein.

8

Since the October 20 judgment was entered, SSA has successfully met with all

9 implementation milestones set forth therein. As an example, SSA provided timely notice to blind

10 and visually impaired social security recipients and payees by the deadline of December 31, 2009,

11 despite the last-minute addition of “fraud prevention” language by the undersigned. Additionally,

12 both class counsel and SSA have worked diligently together to develop an agreed-upon

13 implementation plan, and completed this process without requiring intervention by the

14 undersigned. As part of this jointly approved implementation plan, SSA appointed Mr. John

15 Carlo as project manager for the entire implementation process (Carlo Decl. ¶¶ 1, 2). Mr. Carlo

16 promptly formed an executive-level steering committee to meet on a daily basis to identify

17 implementation problems, refine strategies, and solve any problems that arise (id. ¶ 4). Over the

18 past two months, this committee has focused on developing (and implementing) a plan to meet

19 the undersigned’s final deadline of April 15, 2010. As a direct result of this plan, SSA has

20 accomplished the following (id. ¶¶ 6–15; Parry Decl. ¶ 11; Reply 2):

21

1. Established several methods, including internet and intranet

applications and a special toll-free number, to collect alternative

22

notice preferences of class members;

23

2. Began training of SSA employees through internal “emergency

message” broadcasts and interactive video training;

24

3. Developed a special notice option management tracking tool for the

25

telephone call notice option;

26

4. Designed posters to be placed in SSA offices apprising the public of

new notice formats and specifically revised its civil rights poster to

27

include provisions regarding reasonable accommodation rights

under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act;

28

2

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 368 Filed 01/22/10 Page 3 of 7

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

5. Defined an architectural strategy for its data systems to allow the

agency to deliver notices in the required formats;

2

6. Selected the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) to

3

produce the notices in the required formats; and

4

7. Developed an interim business process for the procedures to be

applied under 45 C.F.R. 85.51.

5

In the process of crafting this plan, however, the committee determined that only partial

6

compliance with the April 15 deadline would be feasible. SSA now anticipates that all notices

7

and communications centrally generated by the Administration will be available in Braille and

8

Microsoft Word CD formats by the current deadline of April 15, 2010, but that notices and

9

communications that are locally generated at field offices and other locations will require an

10

extended, phased timeline. In terms of simple mathematics, SSA expects that 70% of its notices

11

will be available in the court-ordered formats by the April 15 deadline.

12

ANALYSIS

13

SSA’s explanation as to why an extension is necessary is summarized as follows: Over

14

130 million individualized notices are generated every year by the Administration (Parry Decl. ¶

15

3). Of these notices, approximately 93 million are centrally generated — meaning, they are

16

created automatically through mainframe processing at a central location and sent to commercial

17

vendors to be printed and mailed (id. ¶ 10). Because all centrally generated notices are routed

18

through a single distribution point — called “Central Print” by SSA — before being sent to

19

commercial vendors, SSA has decided to focus its initial implementation efforts on upgrading the

20

Central Print system (id. ¶¶ 4, 5). This decision was based upon a determination by the

21

committee that upgrading Central Print was the most efficient course of action to automate and

22

manage the generation of SSA notices in Braille and Microsoft Word formats (id. ¶ 3).

23

Approximately 37 million social security notices, however, are generated locally by

24

individual employees using a multitude of data systems across 1,300 SSA field offices, six

25

processing centers, and 54 State Disability Determination Services (DDS) offices. The committee

26

has determined that there is insufficient infrastructure and ability within SSA to equip and train

27

these locations to convert notices into Braille and Microsoft Word formats by the April 15

28

deadline (ibid.). With respect to these locally generated notices, the committee has concluded

3

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 368 Filed 01/22/10 Page 4 of 7

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 that the most efficient and prudent course of action is to simply connect these local offices with

2 the upgraded Central Print system, rather than extensively revamp each local office with new

3 equipment. This course of action, however, requires that the implementation process for centrally

4 generated notices be completed first (id. ¶¶ 5, 15). Once the modifications to Central Print are

5 completed, the local systems will then be retooled to allow the transmission of locally generated

6 notices to Central Print for distribution to social security recipients (id. ¶ 13).

7

Table 1 below summarizes the phased implementation plan proposed by SSA.

8

PROCESS

9 Development of the Special Notice Option Architecture

10 Production of Centrally Generated Notices in Braille and Microsoft Word CD Formats
11 Production of Locally Generated Notices
12 (TNA, DPS, DGS, AURORA)

13

Production of Locally Generated Notices (DDS)

14

15

COMPLETION DATE April 15, 2010 April 15, 2010
September 30, 2010
Rolling Implementation: October 1, 2010, to December 31, 2011
TABLE 1

16 In the schedule proposed above, TNA, DPS, DGS, and AURORA each represent different

17 document printing and production systems currently in use by SSA field offices. DDS, as

18 mentioned earlier, refers to State Disability Determination Services offices.

19

In their motion, SSA sets forth detailed explanations as to why their proposed timeline is

20 the most efficient and sensible course of action. Having reviewed defendants’ supporting

21 declarations, the undersigned agrees. From both a cost and manageability standpoint, the creation

22 of a central hub where all special notices are generated — and to which all field offices will be

23 connected — is a superior alternative to installing specialized printing equipment in offices across

24 the country (and training employees and technicians to use and maintain them) (id. ¶ 3). For class

25 members, this would ensure that future modifications or corrections to special notice formats,

26 such as upgrading the version of Microsoft Word, could be done on a single system, rather than

27 thousands of separate systems. As such, the extension of deadlines for the implementation of

28 locally generated notices appears justified and reasonable.

4

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 368 Filed 01/22/10 Page 5 of 7

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

As for the“rolling implementation” proposed for the approximately 8 million notices sent

2 through DDS offices, this is apparently due to the fact that DDS offices are creatures of state

3 governments (Payne Decl ¶ 3). As such, each office uses its own data system to generate notices.

4 Because of this lack of uniformity, each DDS office will require individual modification to (1)

5 store the new special notice preferences, and (2) connect to the Central Print system (id. ¶¶ 3, 4).

6 These implementation efforts would also need to follow the completion of the implementation

7 process for centrally generated notices (id. ¶ 8). Additionally, since SSA cannot modify the

8 various document systems used by each individual DDS office at the same time (the vendor being

9 used to perform this implementation does not have the staff to do this), the “rolling

10 implementation” plan reflects this reality (ibid.). Since DDS notices account for only 6% of all

11 notices generated by SSA, the undersigned will accept the proposed schedule pertaining to the

12 implementation of these notices.

13

On a separate but related matter, because of the substantial extensions requested by SSA,

14 the parties propose implementing an interim notice system whereby SSA will send a Braille or

15 Microsoft Word cover letter to any recipient who has requested either of these special notice

16 formats whenever notice of any potential adverse action (i.e., a reduction, suspension, or

17 termination of benefits) is mailed to a class member by standard print after April 15, 2010. This

18 interim measure is directed towards the following requirement set forth in the findings of fact and

19 conclusions of law: “After April 16, 2010, no social security benefits may be reduced or

20 terminated to any individual shown in the SSA records to be blind or visually impaired . . . unless

21 such person was first provided with the notice prescribed above and the method of notice, if any,

22 selected by said person was followed” (Dkt. No. 323 at 40–41). SSA asks the undersigned to

23 allow this interim measure to satisfy — but only until the deadlines set forth in Table 1 are

24 reached — the requirement that “the method of notice, if any, selected by said person was

25 followed.” After the proposed deadlines have passed, the entire notice (and not just a cover

26 letter) would have to be in the requested format for this requirement to be satisfied. Class counsel

27 do not oppose this interim measure proposal (Dkt. No. 366 at 2).

28

5

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 368 Filed 01/22/10 Page 6 of 7

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

On this issue, the undersigned agrees with the parties that this is the best compromise

2 between the competing interests at stake. On one hand, preventing SSA from reducing or

3 terminating benefits to blind or visually impaired recipients unless the person was first provided

4 with their preferred notice format is aimed directly at protecting the interests of class members

5 and ensuring that the judgment has its intended effect. On the other hand, given the fact that only

6 70% of notices will be available in Braille and Microsoft Word by April 16, 2010, strict

7 enforcement of this limitation during the extension period may result in a staggering amount of

8 overpaid benefits. The interim notice measure represents the parties’ prudent compromise on

9 these equally legitimate concerns.

10

CONCLUSION

11

For the reasons set forth above, and having considered all briefs and declarations

12 submitted by the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

13

1. The final compliance deadline of April 15, 2010 is AMENDED. The deadlines set

14

forth in Table 1 of this order now govern the relief ordered by the Court.

15

2. The interim measure detailed by SSA in their reply brief and described above,

16

whereby a standardized cover letter in Braille or Microsoft Word format

17

(depending upon the recipient’s preference) is sent to the recipient whenever SSA

18

sends any notice of a potential adverse action by means of standard print after

19

April 15, 2010, is APPROVED. This approval is temporary in that it applies only to

20

the period between April 15, 2010, and the applicable implementation deadline set

21

forth in Table 1.

22

3. For the period between April 15, 2010, and the applicable implementation deadline

23

set forth in Table 1, the interim measure will satisfy the requirement set forth in the

24

findings of fact and conclusions of law that “the method of notice, if any, selected

25

by said person was followed.” To be clear, once a particular deadline has passed,

26

the interim measure will not satisfy this requirement. Thus, for locally generated

27

28

6

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 368 Filed 01/22/10 Page 7 of 7

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

notices (non-DDS), the interim measure will not satisfy this requirement after the

2

September 30 deadline has passed.

3

4. The hearing on this motion scheduled for January 28, 2010, is VACATED.

4

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

7 Dated: January 22, 2010. 8

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

 
 1

2

3

4

5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7

8

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

9 AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, a
10 District of Columbia non-profit corporation, SCARLETT MILES, MARVELENA
11 QUESADA, ARLENE DOHERTY, ALICE MARJORIE DONOVAN, BILLIE JEAN
12 KEITH, GEORGE P. SMITH, MARY ANN ALEXANDER, AND LAURA M. RUSSELL
13 on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
14 Plaintiffs,
15 v.
16 MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner of
17 Social Security Administration, in his official capacity, and SOCIAL SECURITY
18 ADMINISTRATION,

No. C 05–4696 WHA
CLASS ACTION
ORDER AMENDING COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE AND VACATING HEARING

19

Defendants.

/

20

21

In this class action involving visually impaired social security beneficiaries and their

22 rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to receive communications from the Social

23 Security Administration (SSA) in Braille and Microsoft Word formats, defendants move to amend

24 the implementation schedule governing the relief ordered by the Court. Plaintiffs filed a

25 statement of non-opposition, as well as a joint stipulation outlining the parties’ agreement on this

26 matter (Dkt. No. 375). For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

27

On October 20, 2009, following a bench trial held in September 2009, the undersigned

28 entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, requiring SSA

to provide blind and visually impaired beneficiaries, recipients, and representative payees in the

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Title II and Title XVI benefits programs with the option of receiving notices and communications

2 in Braille and navigable Microsoft Word CD formats (Dkt. No. 323). Various implementation

3 milestones, as well as a final compliance deadline of April 15, 2010, were set forth therein.

4

On December 24, 2009, defendants moved to amend the implementation schedule based

5 upon a comprehensive implementation plan developed within SSA (Dkt. No. 348). The basis for

6 the motion was that (1) the original implementation deadlines were established without reference

7 to the inner-workings of SSA, and (2) to implement the judgment properly, a staggered

8 implementation would be necessary. While the motion was pending, the parties reached an

9 agreement on the revised schedule, and plaintiffs withdrew their opposition to the motion (Dkt.

10 No. 366). In an order issued on January 22, 2010, defendants’ motion was granted and the

11 compliance schedule was amended (Dkt. No. 368). The January 22 order found that adopting

12 defendants’ comprehensive plan — which divided implementation into two stages, and was

13 designed to ensure greater manageability and reliability of the notice-generating process — would

14 be in the best interests of class members.

15

While the original compliance schedule set a final deadline of April 15, 2010, for all SSA

16 notices to be available in Braille and Microsoft Word format, the amended plan only required

17 partial compliance with this deadline. Specifically, the revised schedule retained the April 15

18 deadline for notices and communications that were centrally generated by SSA, which accounted

19 for approximately 70% of all notices and communications mailed each year. Notices and

20 communications that were locally generated at field offices and other locations, however, were

21 given extended, staggered deadlines. The reasoning behind this separation between centrally

22 generated and locally generated notices was based upon the logical decision to generate all

23 special-format SSA notices from one central location. In other words, once the central location

24 was equipped to generate and mail notices in Braille and Microsoft Word format, the local offices

25 would be connected to the “central hub,” and their notices would also print from the central

26 location. The benefits of this approach were two-fold: (1) increased manageability of having only

27 one central printing location, and (2) savings in costs by not having to purchase special printing

28 equipment and train personnel at each local office.

2

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

On March 25, 2010, defendants filed the instant motion, seeking to amend only the April

2 15 deadline established for centrally generated notices (Dkt. No. 372). Defendants seek a five-

3 week extension to May 24, 2010, which they claim is necessary due to a combination of two

4 factors: (1) closures due to record snow-fall in Washington, D.C. in early February 2010 (causing

5 approximately two weeks of delay) and (2) difficulty in converting notices to Braille and

6 navigable Microsoft Word format, due to inaccurate estimates of the complexity of SSA notices

7 (causing the rest of the delay) (Parry Decl. ¶¶ 15–21). Related to this extension, SSA requests

8 that the date after which “no social security benefits may be reduced or terminated to any

9 individual shown in the SSA records to be blind or visually impaired . . . unless . . . the method of

10 notice, if any, selected by said person was followed,” be extended to May 24, and the date by

11 which SSA must “file a certificate of compliance” with the above obligations be extended to May

12 26 (Br. 10; Dkt. No. 323 at 40–41).

13

SSA also requests additional time to provide “Record Specification” notices in the new

14 format. These notices — which were not discussed in any of the previous motions — did not fall

15 within SSA’s special notice policy prior to the date of judgment, are generated by an entirely

16 separate process than all other notices mentioned above (indeed, they are generated by third-party

17 vendors), and are “strictly informational and non-decisional” (Parry Decl. ¶ 38). Finally, SSA

18 informed the Court that it had decided to grant requests under 45 C.F.R. § 85.51 by beneficiaries

19 for notices and communications in large print and audio CDs.

20

Plaintiffs’ filed a statement of non-opposition and a joint stipulation on April 1, outlining

21 additional provisions agreed upon by the parties (Dkt. No. 375). In their statement, plaintiffs

22 consented to the relief requested based upon SSA’s decision to implement the following:

23

1. In order to inform relevant SSA staff of its decision to grant requests made under

24

45 C.F.R. § 85.51 for large print and audio CDs, SSA will either issue a new

25

Emergency Message or revise its existing Emergency Message by June 15, 2010.

26

2. SSA will provide a schedule with specific dates for revising all relevant agency

27

documents to conform to its decision to grant requests for large print and audio

28

CDs in the June 15, 2010 monitoring report submitted to plaintiffs.

3

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

3. SSA will provide a time schedule with specific dates for actually providing the

2

large print and audio CD formats that will be provided to class members in the

3

September 15, 2010 monitoring report.

4

*

*

*

5

Having reviewed defendant’s motion and attached declarations, this order finds that good

6 cause supports the requested extension of the April 15 deadline for centrally generated notices,

7 and that the requested extensions are both reasonable and in the best interests of the class.

8

First, with respect to the April 15 implementation deadline, this order accepts defendants’

9 proffered reasons why implementation is now five weeks behind schedule. As explained in the

10 prior order, defendants have been diligent in meeting all other deadlines, and have substantially

11 complied with the terms of the judgment. Moreover, this order finds that the interests of absent

12 class members would not be protected if defendants were forced to cut short the already

13 abbreviated testing and implementation period. Nobody will benefit if the updated system is

14 plagued with malfunctions and errors due to an unreasonably rushed deployment. As such, the

15 request to extend this deadline to May 24, 2010, is GRANTED.

16

Second, with respect to the April 15 deadline after which “no social security benefits may

17 be reduced or terminated to any individual shown in the SSA records to be blind or visually

18 impaired . . . unless . . . the method of notice, if any, selected by said person was followed,” it

19 makes little sense to leave this deadline in place while the compliance deadline has been

20 extended. Moreover, any beneficiaries who receive benefits to which they are not entitled would

21 generally be required to repay the amount to the government anyway. 42 U.S.C. 404(a)(A)(1),

22 1383(b)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R. 404.502, 416.560, 416.570. As such, the request to extend this deadline

23 to May 24, 2010, is also GRANTED.

24

Third, given that the above deadlines have been extended to May 24, 2010, the request to

25 extend the deadline by which SSA must “file a certificate of compliance under oath stating in

26 detail what was done to comply” with these obligations is GRANTED. SSA must file this

27 certificate of compliance by NOON ON MAY 26, 2010.

28

4

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

Fourth, this order adopts SSA’s proposed schedule governing the production of Record

2 Specification notices in Braille and Microsoft Word format. This schedule is shown below (Br.

3 14; Parry Decl. ¶ 39):

4

RECORD SPECIFICATION FREQUENCY OF NOTICES

IMPLEMENTATION DEADLINE

5

NOTICE CATEGORY

Representative Payee

Twice per month

6

July 26, 2010

Representative Payee Final Twice per month (beginning July 26, 2010

7

Accounting

in August 2010)

8

Payee Fee Adjustment

Annually, in November

November 1, 2010

9

Step Parent

Annually, in November

November 1, 2010

National Change of

Four times per year

February 1, 2011

10

Address

11

Good News #2.75

Monthly

February 1, 2011

12

Beneficiary Recontact

Monthly

February 1, 2011

13

CPS

Daily

May 1, 2011

14

TALC Mail

Daily

May 1, 2011

Mid-Year Mailer

Annually, in July

July 1, 2011

15

Continuing Disability

Four times per year

September 1, 2011

16

Review Mailer

17

Title II COLA

Annually, in November

November 20, 2011

18

Unlike centrally generated and locally generated notices, these notices are not generated

19 by SSA. Rather, they are produced by third-party vendors. Additionally, these notices are purely

20 informational and do not affect a beneficiary’s entitlement to benefits. Given these two factors,

21 the schedule proposed by SSA for these particular notice types is reasonable and in the best

22 interests of the class, because (1) the information contained within these notices do not affect

23 entitlement to benefits, and (2) delaying the implementation of these notices will allow SSA to

24 focus on ensuring that centrally generated notices — which account for 70% of all notices, and

25 may affect entitlement — are available in Braille and Microsoft Word format by May 24, 2010.

26 As such, SSA’s request to amend the compliance schedule to add these new dates for Record

27 Specification notices is GRANTED.

28

*

*

*

5

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

For the reasons set forth above, SSA’s motion to amend the compliance schedule is

2 GRANTED. The hearing on this motion scheduled for April 8, 2010, is VACATED.

3

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

6 Dated: April 2, 2010. 7

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

 
 Case3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document385 Filed04/30/12 Page1 of 3

1 Arlene B. Mayerson (SBN 79310; amayerson@dredf.org)
Larisa M. Cummings (SBN 131076; lcummings@dredf.org) 2 Charlotte L. Lanvers (SBN 257814; clanvers@dredf.org)
3 DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND DEFENSE FUND 3075 Adeline Street, Suite 210
4 Berkeley, CA 94703 Telephone: +1.510.644.2555
5 Facsimile: +1.510.841.8645

6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11 AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, a

12

District of Columbia non-profit corporation, SCARLETT MILES, MARVELENA QUESADA,

13 ARLENE DOHERTY, ALICE MARJORIE DONOVAN, BILLIE JEAN KEITH, and GEORGE

14 P. SMITH on behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated, 15

16

Plaintiffs,

Case No.: 05-04696 WHA
JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING LETTER FROM CLASS MEMBER

17

v.

18 MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, in her official capacity, and
19 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

20 21 //

Defendants.

22 //

23 // 24

On April 16, 2012, the Court informed counsel that it had received a lengthy letter from

25 class member Stephanie Ramey in ACB, et al. v. Astrue, et al, concerning the Social Security

26 Administration and information in Braille. The Court requested the parties’ opinion about whether
27 the Court has jurisdiction over this class member’s particular claim. Counsel for the parties believe
28

1
JOINT STATEMENT

05-04696 WHA

Case3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document385 Filed04/30/12 Page2 of 3

1 that the proper way for issues raised by class members to be brought to the Court’s attention is

2 through a motion by class counsel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(4) (recognizing that it is the duty of
3 class counsel to represent “fairly and adequately” the members of a class). Counsel for the parties
4 have been engaged in a meet and confer process as specified in the Revised Implementation Plan
5 6 and agree that any compliance concerns should be addressed through the process outlined therein.

7

Counsel for the parties reviewed the letter, met and conferred and will address the letter as

8 follows:

9

10

1. The class member’s concerns as to the notices received in standard print only prior to the

11

ACB v. Astrue dates for implementation are not in violation of the Court’s Order or the

12

Revised Implementation Plan.

13

14 2. SSA contends that it has sent the class member correspondence in Braille for all
15

16

communications and notices sent after September 30, 2010, with the exception of a letter

17

sent from the Office of General Counsel on January 27, 2011 in standard print. This letter

18

will be remediated in Braille and sent to Ms. Ramey for her records. 1

19

20

3. On April 30, 2012, class counsel conferred with Ms. Ramey, to inform her that the letter

21 sent by the Office of General Counsel on January 27th, 2011 will be sent in Braille, that the
22
overpayment issue cannot be reopened by this Court, and that Ms. Ramey should contact 23

24

class counsel if she does not receive future notices and communications in a timely manner

25

and in Braille from SSA.

26

27

28

2
JOINT STATEMENT

05-04696 WHA

Case3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document385 Filed04/30/12 Page3 of 3

1

2 DATED: April 30, 2012 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Stipulated and Agreed,
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
By: _______/s/ Charlotte Lanvers
Arlene Mayerson (SBN 79310) Larisa Cummings (SBN 131076) Charlotte Lanvers (SBN 257814) DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND DEFENSE FUND, INC. 3075 Adeline Street, Suite 210 Berkeley, CA 94703 Telephone: (510) 644-2555 amayerson@dredf.org lcummings@dredf.org clanvers@dredf.org
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
By: _______/s/ Scott Risner
MARSHA S. EDNEY (D.C. Bar) SCOTT RISNER (Michigan Bar) United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-4520 (telephone) (202) 616-8470 (fax) marsha.edney@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Defendants.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 28 1 To the extent Ms. Ramey seeks to challenge a determination as to her benefits, the Court lacks
jurisdiction over such a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

3
JOINT STATEMENT

05-04696 WHA

 
 Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 1 of 56

1 WONDIE RUSSELL (Bar No. 77990)

CATHERINE P. ROSEN (BarNo. 62562)

2 HELLER EHRMAN LLP

3

333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104

4 Telephone: +1.415.772.6000

Facsimile: +1.415.772.6268

5 Wondie.Russell@hellerehrman.com

6 ARLENE MAYERSON (BarNo. 79310)

7 LARlSA M. CUMMINGS (Bar No. 131 076)

SILVIA YEE (Bar No. 222737)
8 DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND DEFENSE FUND

2212 Sixth Street

9 Berkeley, CA 94710

Telephone: + 1.510.644.2255

10 Facsimile: +1.510.841.8645

11 lcummings@dredf.org

1

12 See Signature Page for List ofAdditional Counsel
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN FRANCISCO DNISION

li,Ll~ 16

17

AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE District of Columbia non-profit corporation,

18 TAMMY RENEE COOPER, SCARLETT MILES, MARVELENA QUESADA, ARLENE DOHERTY,
19 ALICE MARJORIE DONOVAN, BILLIE JEAN

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

KEITH, and GEORGE P. SMITH on behalf of 20 themselves and all others similarly situated,

{CLASS ACTION)

21

Plaintiffs,

22
V.
23
JOANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of the 24 Social Security Administration, in her official 25 capacity, and SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION
26
Defendants.
27

28

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 2 of 56

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. Over one hundred thousand blind and visually impaired Americans rely on benefits

3 from the Social Security Administration ("SSA") to meet their basic needs. They are among the 48

4 million Americans who receive benefits from the Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance

5 ("OASDI") program based on an earnings history, and the seven million Americans who receive

6 Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") based on financial need and either age, blindness, or other

7 disabilities. Despite the obvious and critical importance of these benefits, SSA regularly

8 communicates with blind and visually impaired persons in standard print format, which they cannot

9 read. SSA regularly suspends the benefits of blind and visually impaired recipients for failing to

10 comply with requirements set forth in standard print documents that they cannot read and for failing

11 to return printed forms that they cannot complete. As a result, many have suffered extreme

12
financial and personal hardship.

13

2. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and federal regulations require SSA to

14 communicate effectively with its applicants, beneficiaries, and recipients. SSA must reasonably

15 accommodate blind and visually impaired persons to ensure that they have an equal opportunity to

16 participate in and enjoy the benefits of SSA programs. Such reasonable accommodations for

17 persons with impaired vision would ordinarily include readers, Brailled materials, audio recordings,

18 electronic mail, large print format and computer disks. (As an example of a document in an

19 accessible format for blind and visually impaired individuals who read Braille, attached as Exhibit 1

20 is a Braille version of this complaint.) Over three decades after the enactment of the Rehabilitation

21 Act, however, SSA refuses to communicate with blind and visually impaired persons in these or

22 any other accessible formats. Such conduct bars blind and visually impaired persons from

23 participating equally in SSA programs and deprives them of critical benefits without meaningful

24 notice in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth

25
Amendment to the United States Constitution.

26

27

28

1
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 3 of 56

1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1361.

3 Plaintiffs seek a declaration ofrights pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S. C. §§ 2201,

4 2202.

5

4.

Plaintiffs Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, Alice Mmjorie Donovan, and

6 George P. Smith reside within this District. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) in the
7 Northern District of California because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs'

8 claims occurred in this District and because Defendants maintain several offices and operate in this

9 District.
10

PARTIES

11

5. Plaintiff American Council of the Blind ("ACB") is a national membership

12 organization of blind and visually impaired persons organized as a non-profit corporation under the

13 laws of the District of Columbia. ACB brings this action on behalf of its blind and visually

14 impaired members who are suffering deprivations of their rights and protected interests as a result

15 of Defendants' conduct and policies. ACB has approximately eighteen thousand members

16 nationwide, many of whom are blind or visually impaired.

17

6. Plaintiff Tammy Renee Cooper is a blind, 35 year old recipient of SSI and

18 beneficiary of Social Security Disability Insurance ("SSDI''), which is part of the OASDI program,

19 based on blindness. She resides in Los Angeles, California.

20

7.

Plaintiff Scarlett Miles is a visually impaired, 53 year old recipient of SSI based on

21 blindness. She resides in Eagle Point, Oregon.

22

8. Plaintiff Marvelena Quesada is a blind, 31 year old recipient of SSI and beneficiary

23 of SSDI based on blindness. She resides in San Francisco, California.

24

9. Plaintiff Arlene Doherty is a blind, 70 year old beneficiary of Social Security

25 retirement insurance benefits, which are part of the OASDI program, based on age and a prior

26 recipient of SSI based on blindness. She resides in San Francisco, California.

27

28

2
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 4 of 56

1

10. Plaintiff Alice Mrujorie Donovan is a blind, 43 year old recipient of SSI based on

2 blindness. She resides in Burlingame, California.

3

11. Plaintiff Billie Jean Keith is a visually impaired, 66 year old beneficiary of Social

4 Security retirement insurance benefits based on age and a prior recipient of SSI based on blindness.

5 She resides in Arlington, Virginia.

6

12. Plaintiff George P. Smith is a blind, 62 year old recipient ofSSI and a beneficiary of

7 SSDI benefits based on blindness residing in Oakland, California.

8

13. Defendant JoAnne B. Barnhart is the Commissioner ofSSA. As such, she is

9 charged by federal law with administering and supervising all benefits programs administered by

10 SSA nationwide, including SSI, OASDI, and Special Veterans Benefits under Title VIII of the

11 Social Security Act. She is also responsible for taking new Medicare applications and for

12 determining eligibility for the low income subsidy under the Medicare Part D prescription drug

13 benefit. She is sued in her capacity as the official charged with performing the statutory and

14 regulatory duties of SSA and with supervisory responsibility over SSA and its divisions, agents,

15 employees and representatives.

16

14. Defendant Social Security Administration administers and supervises all SSA

17 benefits programs nationwide, including SSI, OASDI, and Special Veterans Benefits under Title

18 VIII of the Social Security Act, as well as taking new Medicare applications and for determining

19 eligibility for the low income subsidy under the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit.

20

15. All divisions, agents, employees and representatives of Defendants were acting

21 within the scope of their agency or employment while making any of the statements and

22 committing any of the acts alleged herein. Defendants and any of their respective divisions, agents,

23 employees and representatives each acted as the agent or representative of each other in committing

24 any of the acts or making any of the statements alleged herein.

25

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

26

16. Plaintiffs ACB, Tammy Renee Cooper, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene

27 Doherty, Alice Mrujorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith and George P. Smith ("Plaintiffs") bring this

28 complaint on behalf of themselves and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons.

3
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 5 of 56

1 The class consists of all current and future applicants, beneficiaries, recipients, and representative 2 payees of SSA programs who have visual impairments that substantially limit the major life activity

3 of seeing and require accessible formats to ensure access to the information that SSA provides to

4 applicants, beneficiaries, and recipients of its programs.

5

17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that the class consists of

6 well over one hundred thousand persons and is so numerous that joinder of all class members is

7 impracticable.

8

18. There are questions of law and fact common to all class members that predominate

9 over questions only affecting individual class members, including, among others: (a) whether

10 Defendants' refusal to offer or provide class members with communications in accessible formats

11 bars their equal participation in SSA benefits programs in violation of Section 504 of the

12 Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and (b) whether Defendants' policy ofreducing or terminating the class 13 members' SSA benefits solely upon standard print notices violates the Due Process Clause of the

14 Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

15

19. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of all class members, they arise from the

16 same course of conduct by Defendants, and the relief sought is common to all class members. In

17 addition, Defendants have acted and continue to act on grounds generally applicable to all class

18 members, thereby making relief appropriate to the class as a whole.

19

20. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class members.

20

STATEMENT OF FACTS

21

21. In providing benefits to millions of indigent and disabled Americans, SSA regularly

22 communicates complex information to applicants, beneficiaries, and recipients ofits programs.

23 SSA regularly sends blind persons standard print notices about their individual benefits. These

24 notices regularly include calculations of awards, suspensions and terminations of their benefits,

25 printed forms to complete, appointments to meet with SSA representatives, requests for re-

26 certification of their eligibility, and deadlines for responding to SSA requests.

27

28

4
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 6 of 56

1

22. SSA only provides such individual notices in standard print format. Despite

2 repeated requests and complaints, SSA refuses to provide individual notices in formats that are

3 accessible to blind persons, such as Braille, large print, electronic mail and audiotape recording.

4

23. Standard printed notices about individual benefits are difficult to comprehend,

5 analyze, and recall based on a single reading. (See, for example, Exhibits 2 and 3.) They are even

6 more difficult to comprehend based on hearing the information read aloud a single time. Such

7 notices often establish requirements and rapid deadlines that blind persons cannot meet unless they

8 are provided in accessible format. Such notices typically state that SSA will suspend benefits if the

9 beneficiary or recipient does not respond within a short time frame. (See, for example, Exhibit 4.)

10 In particular, written notice of suspension of SSI benefits requires recipients and beneficiaries to

11 file an appeal within ten days in order for their SSI benefits to continue pending determination on

12 appeal. Other written notices require blind persons to provide financial and medical records, which

13 blind persons cannot gather quickly or without sighted assistance, which can be quite expensive.

14 Because blind persons often cannot comply with these requirements and deadlines without having

15 the requests in an accessible format, their SSA benefits are suspended or terminated for failure to

16 comply. This conduct on the part of SSA deprives blind persons of equal access to essential

17 information they need to maintain their benefits.

18

24. SSA also provides more general information in its benefits publications to

19 applicants, beneficiaries, and recipients about its programs, including: discussions of applicable

20 rules, procedures, and conditions on eligibility for benefits; procedures and rights pertaining to

21 appealing adverse determinations; and the duties imposed upon beneficiaries and recipients.

22

25. While SSA provides a select list of publications about its programs in accessible

23 formats, SSA has not adequately publicized the availability of such information or trained its staff

24 in field offices or at the SSA 800 toll-free telephone number to ensure that blind persons are

25 informed of its availability. Indeed, many blind persons who request such information are told that

26 it does not exist. Callers who do receive program information must know to ask for precise

27 publication titles or get additional SSA contact numbers- information that is not readily

28

5
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTNE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 7 of 56

1 obtainable from SSA. This conduct deprives blind persons of equal access to essential program

2 information they need to maintain their benefits.

3

26. In 2002, SSA advised in Program Operations Manual System ("POMS"), an

4 operations manual designed to instruct SSA personnel on agency policy, that it would record the

5 preference of blind beneficiaries to receive benefits information in Braille, but that it could not

6 actually provide such information in Braille at that time. In POMS DI 11005.070 B. 2. e., SSA

7 advised that blind beneficiaries could request (but not receive) benefits information to be provided

8 in Braille. But this provision was eliminated earlier this year. The latest POMS DI 11005.070 B. 2.

9 e. reads: "Braille notices are no longer available." Because it does not provide Braille, SSA

10 recently advised in EM-050209, an internal SSA "policy instruction," that beneficiaries who elect

11 to receive written notices in Braille should nevertheless be provided standard written notice by U.S.

12 mail.

13

27.

The POMS list two "options" for blind persons who request benefits information in

14 an accessible format: a "supplemental telephone call within five working days after the initial

15 notice is mailed"; or a standard print notice sent by certified U.S. mail. A person who requests

16 supplemental telephone calls will only get some notices read over the telephone. According to

17 POMS NL 00603.030, SSA does not offer to read all notices sent, only "vital" notices pertaining to

18 "decisions, determinations or proposed actions" that affect benefits. SSA policy does not require

19 other communications to be read over the telephone, such as notices of appointments with SSA,

20 requests for documents, notices pertaining to consultative examinations and other actions necessary

21 for re-determination of eligibility. Neither option provides effective communication to blind

22 persons.

23

28. A telephone call to read only certain notices sent cannot fully or effectively

24 communicate the complex information SSA routinely provides its beneficiaries and recipients. A

25 single telephone call is inferior to reading information for oneself. The standard print notices

26 contain complex calculations and rules that Plaintiffs must review privately, repeatedly, and at their

27 own pace. Sometimes the notices also contain information of a personal nature. In addition, SSA

28 consistently fails to inform blind persons of the supplemental telephone call option, fails to clarify

6
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTNE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 8 of 56

1 that this option is limited to certain kinds of notices, and fails to provide a supplemental telephone

2 call even to the blind persons who actually request one.

3

29. A standard print notice sent by certified mail does not provide effective

4 communication. Blind persons cannot read standard written documents, regardless of how they

5 arrive in the mail. Certified U.S. mail places a greater burden on blind persons than regular U.S.

6 mail because blind persons will be forced to travel to the post office to sign for a certified letter if

7 they miss delivery, and travel is typically difficult and exhausting for blind persons.

8

30. SSA has a policy of suspending blind persons' benefits without providing a

9 supplemental telephone call. In POMS NL 00603.040, SSA directs its representatives: "Do not

10 cancel a proposed action solely because the advance notice was not read to the

11 claimant/beneficiary. If you are unable to reach the individual to read a due process notice that was

12 mailed, complete the proposed action as usual." (Emphasis added.) Although it is obvious that

13 blind persons cannot read standard written documents, the POMS states that "the due process

14 requirement is met because a notice of proposed action was mailed to the claimant." In POMS NL

15 00603.050, SSA directs its representatives to make only three attempts by telephone, in a ·span of

16 only seven days following the date of the standard written notice, and further, "ifthe notice refers to

17 a pamphlet, read only the notice over the telephone. If assistance is required with the pamphlet,

18 advise the beneficiary to recontact the [field office] about the pamphlet."

19

TAMMY RENEE COOPER

20

31. Ms. Cooper receives SSI and SSDI on the basis of blindness and financial need. In

21 1988, Ms. Cooper began receiving benefits from SSA on the basis of blindness. She has been

22 totally blind since 1988. With few exceptions, SSA has communicated with Ms. Cooper in

23 standard print format, which she cannot read. SSA has not informed Ms. Cooper of her right to a

24 reasonable accommodation ofher disability or inquired about her preference for an accessible

25 format for written communications.

26

32. Ms. Cooper has repeatedly requested SSA to accommodate her disability by

27 providing audio tape recordings of the contents of written information sent to her. SSA denied her

28 requests for audio tape recordings of written communications. As a result, Ms. Cooper has failed to

7
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 9 of 56

1 meet deadlines and other requirements established in written communications from SSA because

2 she cannot read them.

3

33. In 2000, an SSA representative called Ms. Cooper by telephone and offered to read a

4 written communication from SSA. In 2001, she received another such telephone call from an SSA

5 representative. Ms. Cooper relied on telephone calls from SSA representatives to notify her of any

6 communications from SSA and to read the contents of such communications to her.

7

34. Ms. Cooper did not receive another such telephone call. She reasonably assumed

8 that SSA had not sent any further written communications to her because she was told that she

9 would receive a telephone call from an SSA representative if any such communications were sent.

10

35. In September of2003, SSA suspended her SSI and SSDI benefits. Ms. Cooper only

11 discovered that SSA had suspended her benefits when her bank account balance was lower than

12 expected. Immediately after she realized her benefits were suspended, Ms. Cooper contacted SSA

13 and was told by an SSA representative that SSA suspended her benefits because she had received

14 more in benefits than she was entitled to receive. An SSA representative stated that SSA mailed

15 her a written notice of the suspension and that her benefits were suspended when she failed to

16 respond.

17

36. Ms. Cooper informed the SSA representative that she did not receive any such

18 communication and that she could not read written communications because she was blind. She

19 repeated her request to receive communications from SSA by audio tape recording. Her request

20 was refused.

21

37. Subsequently Ms. Cooper's attorney obtained a copy of the suspension notice from

22 SSA. The notice, dated August 5, 2003, stated, "We are stopping the checks because we need

23 correct information about your name, address or bank account." (Exhibit 5.) It made no mention of

24 her having received more benefits than she was entitled to receive. The notice also stated that if she

25 appealed within ten days she could keep getting the same check. Had she been able to read the

26 notice she would have promptly appealed and her benefits would have continued uninterrupted.

27

38. Instead, Ms. Cooper suffered severe financial hardship for the ensuing two months.

28 Without SSI and SSDI benefits, Ms. Cooper could not buy basic necessities, including groceries or

8
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 10 of 56

1 hygiene products. As a result, Ms. Cooper was forced to borrow money from others to meet her

2 basic needs and those of her young son.

3

39. Ms. Cooper later did receive a Notice of Overpayment dated September 30, 2003

4 indicating that she had in fact been paid more than she was entitled to receive and that the amount

5 of the overpayment would be subtracted from future SSI grants. The notice, in addition to

6 providing information on how to appeal, also contained information on how to seek a waiver of

7 recovery of the overpayment if she agreed there was an overpayment but contended she was not at

8 fault in creating the overpayment. (Exhibit 6.) Ms. Cooper was not able to read the notice since it

9 was in standard print format. However, at that point she had an attorney who was successful in

10 obtaining a waiver of recovery of the overpayment.

11

40. In February of2004, pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 85.61, Ms. Cooper filed a complaint

12 with the SSA Office of the General Counsel on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated

13 persons. Her complaint alleged that SSA had discriminated against her and all similarly situated

14 persons in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Her complaint requested,·

15 among other things, an order requiring SSA to communicate effectively with her and all similarly

16 situated persons in a format that is accessible to blind persons and visually impaired persons,

17 including audio tape recordings.

18

41. On June 4, 2004, SSA Region X Office of the General Counsel sent a letter to Ms.

19 Cooper stating that SSA had not discriminated against Ms. Cooper and denying her request for

20 audio tape recordings of standard print communications.

21

42. On July 12, 2004, through her attorney, Ms. Cooper filed a timely request for

22 reconsideration to the SSA Office of the General Counsel. SSA failed to respond to Ms. Cooper's

23 appeal and failed to notif'y Ms. Cooper of the results of her appeal within 60 days.

24

43. Ms. Cooper has exhausted her administrative remedies on behalf of herself and all

25 similarly situated persons pursuant to the procedures outlined by governing Section 504 regulations.

26 Ms. Cooper's administrative complaint was brought expressly on behalf of herself and all similarly

27 situated blind persons who do not receive effective communication from SSA in an accessible

28 format. Ms. Cooper's administrative complaint also provided Defendants an opportunity to cure

9
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 11 of 56

1 the violation, as to her and all similarly situated persons. Defendants rejected Ms. Cooper's

2 administrative complaint and failed to respond to her request for reconsideration. Defendants'

3 conduct with respect to Ms. Cooper's complaint demonstrates that the administrative complaint

4 process is futile and will not provide relief to Ms. Cooper and all similarly situated persons.

5

44. Most recently, in September 2005 Ms. Cooper received a notice from SSA,

6 explaining the change in her benefits associated with her move from Oregon to California, in

7 standard print format and, for the first time, on audio cassette tape as well. SSA has not provided

8 any assurances to Ms. Cooper that it will continue to provide notices in an accessible format. She

9 later received other notices from SSA only in standard print format.

10

45. SSA continues to deny Ms. Cooper an equal opportunity to participate in its

11 programs by communicating with her only in standard print format, except for just one September

12 2005 notice.

13

SCARLETT MILES

14

46. Ms. Miles receives SSI on the basis of blindness and financial need. She began

15 receiving benefits when she was a teenager. Ms. Miles has been visually impaired from a young

16 age and is now blind. With few exceptions, SSA has communicated with Ms. Miles only in

17 standard print format, which she cannot read. SSA has not informed Ms. Miles of her right to

18 reasonable accommodation or inquired about her preference for an accessible format for written

19 communications.

20

47. Ms. Miles has repeatedly requested SSA to accommodate her disability by providing

21 her audio tape recordings of written communications or the contents of such communications by

22 electronic mail, which a computer software program can read aloud to her repeatedly and as often

23 as needed. Ms. Miles has repeatedly requested SSA representatives contact her by telephone when

24 SSA mails a written communication. SSA refused her requests for communications in an

25 accessible format. As a result, Ms. Miles has failed to comply with deadlines and other

26 requirements established in written communications from SSA because she cannot read them.

27

48. In mid-2004, Ms. Miles received a written form from SSA that she could not read or

28 complete. She returned the form to SSA and wrote on it that she was blind and needed to receive

10
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 12 of 56

1 communications in an accessible format. Several months later, SSA sent her the same written form.

2 She returned it and again wrote that she was blind and needed to receive communications in an

3 accessible format. Several months later, in early 2005, SSA sent her the same written form a third

4 time. Ms. Miles called the SSA 800 telephone number for assistance. An SSA representative

5 scheduled a telephone appointment for her local SSA office to assist her in completing the written

6 form.

7

49. Shortly thereafter, an SSA representative from a local SSA office left a voice

8 message for Ms. Miles in response to her request for assistance. The SSA representative stated:

9

"I'm a little confused why you wouldn't have a family or friend help

you complete the questionnaire ... Having a phone appointment for

10

something if you needed assistance seems kind of silly because you

can get a friend or relative to help you or a neighbor. If you wanted

11

to come in and have us complete this, you know that would be your

12

choice, but I don't see any need for you to have this appointment at all."

13

14

50. Ms. Miles telephoned the SSA representative and stated that she did not have any

15 family or friends. Ms. Miles told the SSA representative that she could not read the form. The

16 SSA representative stated that SSA did not have staff to assist Ms. Miles to fill out the form and

17 suggested that "anyone" could fill out the form for Ms. Miles because it was so "simple." Ms.

18 Miles responded that she did not want to disclose her Social Security number to others because she

19 does not have a trusted friend or family member on whom she can rely. For the third time, Ms.

20 Miles returned the form and wrote on the document that she could not read it because she is blind.

21

51. In mid-2005, Ms. Miles received the same written form in standard print format for

22 the fourth time. The form stated it was a "FINAL REQUEST" and that Ms. Miles' SSI benefits

23 would be terminated if she did not complete and return the form within 10 days. But Ms. Miles

24 could not read the form and therefore could not respond within the allotted time. On this occasion

25 Ms. Miles was able to secure the assistance of an attorney who provided her with a copy of the SSA

26 notice in an accessible format. Ms. Miles was then able to respond to SSA, albeit several weeks

27 late, and was assured by an SSA representative that her SSI benefits would continue. As a result of

28 SSA not communicating with her in accessible format, Ms. Miles has suffered and continues to

11
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 13 of 56

1 suffer emotional distress for fear that her benefits will be suspended, which would be disastrous for

2 her since she depends entirely on SSI for her livelihood.

3

52. SSA continues to deny Ms. Miles an equal opportunity to participate in its programs

4 by communicating with her only in standard print format.

5

MARVELENA QUESADA

6

53. Ms. Quesada receives SSI on the basis of blindness and financial need and SSDI on

7 the basis of blindness. On or about 1992 Ms. Quesada began receiving SSI benefits from SSA, and

8 on or about 2004 Ms. Quesada began receiving SSDI benefits from SSA, on the basis of blindness.

9 Ms. Quesada has been blind from birth. With few exceptions, SSA has communicated with Ms.

10 Quesada solely in standard print format, which she cannot read. SSA has not informed Ms. Quesada

11 of her right to reasonable accommodation or inquired about her preference for an accessible format

12 for written communications.

13

54. Ms. Quesada has repeatedly requested SSA by telephone to accommodate her

14 disability by providing written communications in Braille, by electronic mail or computer diskette.

15 SSA refused her requests for communications in an accessible format. Ms. Quesada has also

16 requested information in accessible format about the rules and procedures governing SSA benefits

17 programs, including SSI. Because she did not receive information about her individual benefits and

18 rules governing SSA benefits programs in accessible format, Ms. Quesada has been unable to

19 comply with program requirements.

20

55. In 2003, SSA suspended Ms. Quesada's SSI benefits. In 2003, Ms. Quesada

21 received a written communication from SSA that she could not read. The document established an

22 appointment at an SSA office that Ms. Quesada was required to attend and described documents

23 that she was required to provide. Because she could not read the document, Ms. Quesada did not

24 provide the requested documents or attend the appointment. Ms. Quesada called an SSA claims

25 representative and requested that all further communications be provided to her in Braille because

26 she is blind and cannot read documents written in standard print format. Her request was refused.

27 An SSA representative stated that SSA does not and cannot provide Braille.

28

12
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 14 of 56

1

56. Ms. Quesada suffered severe financial hardship for several months. Without SSI

2 benefits, Ms. Quesada could not buy basic necessities, including groceries. Ms. Quesada borrowed

3 money and purchased necessities on credit. She accumulated a significant amount of debt that was
4 difficult to repay. She made arrangements through a credit counseling service to resolve her

5 outstanding debt problems.

6

57. SSA continues to deny Ms. Quesada an equal opportunity to participate in its

7 programs by communicating with her only in standard print format.

8

ARLENE DOHERTY

9

58. Ms. Doherty receives Social Security retirement insurance benefits on the basis of

10 age. On or about 1970, Ms. Doherty began receiving benefits on the basis of blindness from a state

11 benefits program that was replaced by SSI in 1974. She received SSI on the basis of blindness and

12 later began to receive Social Security retirement insurance benefits on the basis of age when she

13 turned 65. With few exceptions, SSA has communicated with Ms. Doherty solely in standard print

14 format, which she cannot read. SSA has not informed Ms. Doherty of her right to reasonable

15 accommodation or inquired about her preference for an accessible format for written

16 communications.

17

59. Ms. Doherty has repeatedly requested SSA to accommodate her disability by

18 telephoning her to read written communications aloud to her. SSA refused her requests for

19 communications in accessible format. SSA failed to accommodate Ms. Doherty and continued to

20 send her communications in standard print format only. As a result, Ms. Doherty has failed to meet

21 deadlines and other requirements established in written communications from SSA because she

22 cannot read them.

23

60. On occasion, one time per year for several years during the late 1990's, SSA

24 representatives contacted Ms. Doherty by telephone and read the contents of written
25 communications from SSA to her. Ms. Doherty has not received any further telephone calls from

26 an SSA representative.

27

61. Ms. Doherty has relied on sighted persons to read written communications from SSA

28 to her. Ms. Doherty must travel approximately an hour to meet a sighted reader once a week and

13
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 15 of 56

1 bring her mail for the week along with her. Because she is blind, Ms. Doherty sometimes

2 misplaces or leaves important mail behind, the contents of which are not read aloud to her. On

3 occasion, the sighted reader on whom she relies, who is 84 years old, has missed their

4 appointments. In that circumstance, Ms. Doherty must wait two weeks or more before she hears the

5 contents of any written communications.

6

62. In 2003, Ms. Doherty received a series of standard print notices from SSA that she

7 could not read. The written notices stated that her SSI benefits were suspended because she had

8 excess resources. The written notices also stated that she was required to repay the SSI benefits she

9 received while she had excess resources. Because she could not read the written notices from SSA,

10 she did not comprehend them. She erroneously believed that she was obligated to repay SSA

11 beginning in 2004 and ending in 2020 and that she was ineligible to receive SSI benefits until after

12 she had fully repaid SSA in 2020. In fact, she was immediately eligible to receive SSI again

13 because she no longer had excess resources. Ms. Doherty could not understand the content of the

14 written notices because she could not read them and was forced to rely on a sighted reader.

15

63. As a result, Ms. Doherty has not received SSI for over a year and was rendered

16 destitute. Unable to survive on $371 a month in Social Security benefits, she borrowed money

17 from her family members to make ends meet. Eventually, Ms. Doherty decided out of desperation

18 to take out a "reverse mortgage" on her home, thereby depleting the equity she had worked so hard

19 to build up over the years.

20

64. SSA continues to deny Ms. Doherty an equal opportunity to participate in its

21 programs by communicating with her only in standard print format.

22

ALICE MARJORIE DONOVAN

23

65. Ms. Donovan receives SSI benefits on the basis of blindness and financial need.

24 When she was a child, she began receiving benefits on the basis of disability from a state benefits

25 program that was replaced by SSA in 1974. Ms. Donovan has been blind from birth. With few

26 exceptions, SSA has communicated with Ms. Donovan only in standard print format, which she

27 cannot read. SSA has not informed Ms. Donovan of her right to reasonable accommodation or

28 inquired about her preference for an accessible format for written communications.

14
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTNE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 16 of 56

1

66. Ms. Donovan has repeatedly requested SSA to accommodate her disability by

2 providing written notices in Braille, by electronic mail, or on a computer diskette. SSA refused her

3 repeated requests for communications in accessible format. As a result, Ms. Donovan has failed to

4 meet deadlines and other requirements established in written communications from SSA and

5 adverse actions have been taken by SSA to suspend her SSI benefits.

6

67. In May and June 2003, SSA sent Ms. Donovan standard print notices informing her

7 that SSI payments would be changed because she had excess resources. In June 2003 Ms. Donovan

8 requested reconsideration, asking that her SSI payments be reinstated, explaining the bases for the

9 apparently excessive balance in her bank account, and reiterating her request that SSA

10 communicate with her in accessible format.

11

68. In 2004, on two occasions, an SSA representative telephoned Ms. Donovan and

12 offered to read the contents of a standard print communication that SSA had sent to her by mail.

13 Ms. Donovan came to rely on telephone calls from SSA to inform her of communications about her

14 benefits, but SSA still sent written communications in standard print format without also providing

15 her a telephone call. Accordingly, Ms. Donovan is forced to rely on a sighted reader to ensure that

16 she does not miss written communications from SSA about her benefits.

17

69. In September of 2004, Ms. Donovan received a standard print notice that SSA

18 proposed to suspend her SSI benefits effective October 1, 2004 because she had excess resources.

19 A sighted reader, available to Ms. Donovan on an irregular basis, read her the contents of the letter.

20 But Ms. Donovan could not understand why SSA was suspending her SSI benefits because she

21 could not read the letter for herself. Ms. Donovan also did not have access to information about the

22 rules and requirements governing SSI benefits. Ms. Donovan could not recall specific details

23 contained in the notice because she did not have an accessible copy to which she could refer.

24

70. In September of2004, a sighted reader wrote a letter to SSA on Ms. Donovan's

25 behalfrequesting reconsideration and that her SSI benefits continue until her request was resolved.

26 On September 22, 2004, a sighted reader wrote another letter to SSA on her behalf requesting

27 "Braille materials and Braille copies of regulations" and "copies of SSA regulations which may

28 clarify what a resource is, how much an individual can have in resources, and regulations regarding

15
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 17 of 56

1 Blindness Related Work Expenses and what can be counted against work income." SSA has not

2 responded to her request for accessible program information and materials. In addition, because

3 SSA refused to communicate with her in an accessible format, Ms. Donovan requested that SSA

4 provide her information about how to file an administrative discrimination complaint with SSA.

5 SSA also failed to respond to that request, and, as a result, Ms. Donovan has been unable to file an

6 administrative complaint.

7

71. SSA sent more standard print letters to Ms. Donovan in September, October and

8 November of 2004, demanding repayment of thousands of dollars in SSI benefits. On September

9 27, 2004, SSA sent Ms. Donovan a letter stating that her SSI benefits would be suspended effective

10 November 2004. In November of 2004, checks written against Ms. Donovan's account were

11 returned for insufficient funds. Ms. Donovan contacted her bank to inquire as to why her account

12 had insufficient funds and learned that SSA had terminated her SSI benefits, in spite of her requests

13 for reconsideration and continuation of her benefits until her request was resolved. She telephoned

14 a local SSA office, and an SSA representative informed her that her SSI benefits had been

15 suspended in October of 2004.

16

72. Ms. Donovan suffered financial hardship for two months. Without SSI benefits, Ms.

17 Donovan had difficulty meeting her expenses. In December of 2004, Ms. Donovan contacted an

18 SSA representative who finally arranged to restore her SSI benefits until resolution of her request

19 for reconsideration, including the months during which her benefits were suspended.

20

73. In June 2005, SSA sent a standard print letter reducing Ms. Donovan's SSI benefits

21 again, effective July 1, 2005. On several occasions, Ms. Donovan called SSA to request an

22 explanation because she could not read the notice or understand it merely by having it read aloud.

23 She also wrote to SSA, with the help of a sighted reader, asking that no amounts be withheld from

24 her SSI payments while she prepared her response and requesting documents in accessible format,

25 such as Braille, to accommodate her blindness. To date, she has not received a response.

26

74. Most recently, an SSA representative telephoned Ms. Donovan on September 13,

27 2005 to read her a letter, dated that same day, in response to her reconsideration request filed June

28 18, 2003- more than two years earlier. As she requested during the September 13, 2005

16
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 18 of 56

1 telephone call, SSA sent Ms. Donovan an electronic copy of that letter by e-mail on September 14,

2 2005. Noting that reconsideration had been filed on June 18,2003, the letter stated that based on

3 information Ms. Donovan provided on November 29, 2004 SSA had determined that the total

4 amount of overpayment of SSI had been recalculated and decreased. Ms. Donovan responded

5 electronically by e-mail dated October 15, 2005 again requesting reconsideration or appeal for all

6 alleged overpayments of SSI benefits to her. She also acknowledged that for the first time, after

7 about seven years of requests, SSA had communicated with her via e-mail, a format that is

8 accessible to her as a blind person.

9

75. SSA continues to deny Ms. Donovan an equal opportunity to participate in its

10 programs by communicating with her until October 14, 2005 only in standard print format, which

11 she cannot read. Even now that she has received e-mail communications from SSA, based on her

12 years of dealing with SSA she cannot feel certain that SSA will consistently communicate with her

13 in a format that is accessible to her. SSA has not provided Ms. Donovan any assurances that it will

14 continue to provide notices to her in an accessible format.

15 BILLIE JEAN KEITH

16

76. Ms. Keith receives Social Security retirement insurance benefits on the basis of age.

17 Ms. Keith has been visually impaired since the age of nine, but assisted by an adaptive technology

18 that enlarges print, she can slowly read a limited amount of enlarged print. In 1982, Ms. Keith

19 began receiving SSDI on the basis of blindness. SSA has communicated with Ms. Keith solely in

20 standard print format, which she cannot read. SSA has not informed Ms. Keith of her right to

21 reasonable accommodation or inquired about her preference for an accessible format for standard

22 print communications.

23

77. Ms. Keith has repeatedly requested SSA to accommodate her disability by providing

24 standard print communications in large print. SSA refused her request for communications in an

25 accessible format that she can read.

26

78. In 1994, pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 85.61, Ms. Keith filed an administrative complaint

27 against SSA with the Department of Health and Human Services. Her complaint alleged that SSA

28 discriminated against her on the basis of her disability by refusing to provide her with written

17
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 19 of 56

1 communications in large print. In September of 1997, SSA sent a standard print communication to

2 Ms. Keith stating that SSA had not discriminated against Ms. Keith by failing to provide written 3 communications in large print. Ms. Keith could not read the "no discrimination" letter because it 4 was not provided in large print. Ms. Keith is unable to rely on her husband to read standard print

5 documents to her because he is also blind.

6

79. Beginning in 2000, SSA annually sends Ms. Keith a standard print letter stating the

7 amount of Social Security retirement insurance benefits she will receive. Although Ms. Keith

8 believed her benefit should have increased, she could not gather enough information to challenge 9 the determination of her benefits because she was unable to read the standard print letter. In 10 addition, the letter had perforated edges that must be tom carefully and according to instructions on 11 the letter to avoid tearing the text. Because she is visually impaired, Ms. Keith could not properly 12 open the letter and tore the text ofthe letter. As a result, even with her adapative technology that

13 enlarges standard print text, she could not read the letter and gather sufficient information to

14 challenge SSA's determination.

15

80. SSA continues to deny Ms. Keith an equal opportunity to participate in its programs

16 by communicating with her only in standard print format.

17

GEORGE P. SMITH

18

81. Mr. Smith receives SSI and SSDI on the basis of blindness. He first qualified for

19 benefits under California's program of Aid to the Aged, Blind and Disabled (AABD) program

20 when he was a child and was grandfathered in to SSI when the SSI program began in 1974. Ever

21 since then, with few exceptions, SSA has communicated with Mr. Smith solely in standard print

22 format, which he cannot read. SSA has not informed Mr. Smith of his right to reasonable

23 accommodation or inquired about his preference for an accessible format for standard print

24 communications.

25

82. Mr. Smith has repeatedly requested the SSA to provide him with SSI benefits

26 publications in Braille. He does not use a computer and has no means of gaining access to the

27 Internet or the SSA public website. Over the course of more than one year, Mr. Smith repeatedly

28 telephoned the SSA 800 number to request publications about SSI benefits. Until very recently,

18
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 20 of 56

1 each time he was informed that no publications about SSI benefits were available in accessible

2 format. In addition, he attempted to use the automated prompt system on the SSA 800 number to

3 order publications in accessible format, but the system terminated the phone call instead of

4 permitting him to order the publications.

5

83. Not until May of 2005 did a sighted person inform Mr. Smith about the SSA Braille

6 Services Team. He was then able to contact them directly to request SSI benefits publications in

7 Braille. On May 23, 2005, Mr. Smith finally received two volumes purporting to explain the SSI

8 program from the SSA Braille Services Team. He also received another volume listing other

9 publications the SSA provides in Braille.

10

84. SSA failed to accommodate Mr. Smith by continuing to issue written

11 communications in standard print only, by refusing to inquire about his preference to receive

12 written communications in Braille, by refusing to inform him about the SSA's Braille Services

13 Team and otherwise failing to offer and provide him with SSA benefits publications in Braille.

14 While Mr. Smith has secured volunteer assistance from a sighted person to read notices to him, he

15 prefers independent access to communications from SSA and feels insecure about how long he will

16 continue to have reliable help, because it is only a voluntary service from a private organization.

17

85. SSA has denied Mr. Smith an equal opportunity to participate in its programs by

18 communicating with him only in standard print format and by failing to respond to his request for

19 SSA benefits publications in Braille in a prompt and effective manner.

20

AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND

21

86. ACB is a national membership organization whose members are primarily blind and

22 visually impaired persons. ACB brings this action on behalf of its members. Its members include

23 thousands of current beneficiaries and recipients of SSI, SSDI, and Social Security retirement

24 insurance benefits. ACB 's mission is to advocate for the implementation and enforcement of civil

25 rights protections for its blind and visually impaired members and all blind and visually impaired

26 persons; to elevate the social, economic and cultural level of blind persons; and to assist blind

27 persons develop their abilities and to assume a responsible place in the community. ACB publishes

28 a periodical publication in Braille, large print, audiotape, and computer disk; it holds conferences

19
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 21 of 56

1 and seminars for blind and visually impaired persons; it provides employment information and

2 resources to blind and visually impaired persons; and it consults with public and private

3 organizations on behalf of blind and visually impaired persons. Defendant's unlawful conduct

4 interferes with ACB 's mission of elevating the status of blind persons and assisting them with

5 developing and assuming a responsible place in the community and causes ACB to divert its

6 resources to remedy injuries suffered by its members as a result of Defendant's unlawful conduct.

7

87. With few exceptions, SSA has only communicated with blind and visually impaired

8 members of ACB in standard print format. SSA has not informed blind and visually impaired

9 members of ACB of their right to reasonable accommodations of their disabilities. Blind and

10 visually members of ACB cannot comply with deadlines and requirements established in standard

11 print notices from SSA, which they cannot read. As a result, they have suffered reduction and

12 termination of their benefits and related personal and financial hardships.

13

88. Plaintiffs Marvelena Quesada, Billie Jean Keith, Alice Mrujorie Donovan, and

14 Arlene Doherty are members of ACB.

15

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF SECTION 504 OF THE

REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973

16

89. Paragraphs 1-88 are each re-alleged and incorporated herein as if fully set forth 17

herein. 18

90. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (as amended) ("Section 504") 19

provides that: 20
No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United

21

States ... shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded

from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to

22

discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal

23

financial assistance or activity conducted by any Executive agency[.]"

24 29 U.S.C. § 794 (as amended).

25

91. Each of the Plaintiffs and class members is an "individual with a disability" as

26 defined in 29 U.S.C. § 705(20) because each has a visual impairment that substantially limits one or

27 more of their major life activities, including the major life activity of seeing.

28

20
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 22 of 56

1

92. As a result of being "individual[s] with a disability" as defined in 29 U.S.C.

2 § 705(20), each of the named Plaintiffs and class members is entitled to reasonable

3 accommodations in the form of auxiliary aids and services that provide them equal access to the

4 programs SSA administers.

5

93. Defendants are bound by regulations of the United States Department of Health and

6 Human Services promulgated under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 45 C.F.R. § 85.1 et seq.

7

94. These regulations require SSA to provide "auxiliary aids" to Plaintiffs, which are

8 "services or devices that enable persons with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills to have

9 an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, programs or activities" that SSA

10 conducts. As defined by the regulations themselves, auxiliary aids "useful for persons with 11 impaired vision include readers, Brailled materials, audio recordings, and other similar services and

12 devices." Jd. The regulations also require SSA to "take appropriate steps to ensure effective 13 communication" and "furnish appropriate auxiliary aids where necessary to afford an individual 14 with handicaps an equal opportunity" to participate in its programs. Id. ln addition, SSA must
15 "give primary consideration to the requests of the individual with handicaps" in determining the

16 type of auxiliary aid it must provide. 45 C.F.R. § 85.5l(a)(l).

17

95. As alleged herein, Defendants have and continue to discriminate unlawfully against

18 the named Plaintiffs and the class members by failing to communicate with Plaintiffs and the class

19 members in an accessible format. By refusing to communicate in a format that is accessible to

20 blind persons, Defendants has created and continues to create a significant and unnecessary

21 obstacle to Plaintiffs' and the class members' participation in SSA programs. Plaintiffs and the

22 class members cannot comprehend or use critical information from SSA in a manner equal to that
23 of sighted persons. Plaintiffs and the class members are forced to rely on the assistance of sighted

24 persons to communicate the contents of standard print communications to them. Such sighted

25 assistance is often unavailable, expensive, unreliable, inconsistent, untimely, or ineffective. ln

26 particular, relying on sighted assistance also requires blind persons to submit to an invasion of

27 privacy; they must disclose highly sensitive information- including their Social Security numbers

28 and private financial information- to sighted persons simply to gain access to their own, private

21
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 23 of 56

1 Social Security benefits information. As a result, Plaintiffs who use sighted assistance are exposed

2 to a needless risk of identity theft.

3

96. Providing individual benefits and program information in formats accessible to

4 Plaintiffs and the class members would not fundamentally alter SSA programs or create an undue

5 administrative or cost burden. Numerous governmental agencies and large commercial entities

6 already provide individual account and benefits information to blind and visually impaired persons

7 in similar accessible formats.

8

97. Defendants' conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous violation of the law.

9 Unless restrained from doing so, Defendants will continue to so violate the law. Defendants'

10 conduct has caused and will continue to cause Plaintiffs immediate and irreparable injury.

11 Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law for the injuries they suffer and will continue to suffer.

12 Thus, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief.

13

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request relief as set forth below.

14 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
15
98. Paragraphs 1-97 are each re-alleged and incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
16
99. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits Defendants from
17
depriving Plaintiffs and the class members of a protected property interest without adequate notice
18
and an opportunity to be heard. Plaintiffs and the class members have a protected property interest 19
in receiving SSA benefits. 20
100. Defendants have failed and continue to fail to provide Plaintiffs and the class 21
members information in accessible formats about their individual benefits, SSA benefits publication 22
materials, and the rules governing SSA benefits programs. As a result, Plaintiffs and the class 23
members are denied adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard with respect to suspensions,
24
25 terminations, and other actions affecting their SSA benefits. Defendants' conduct has deprived and 26 continues to deprive Plaintiffs and the class members of SSA benefits to which they are entitled.
101. As described above, Defendants have a policy of offering a telephone call to
27 28 Plaintiffs to read the content of only certain kinds of standard print notices, such as of proposed

22
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 24 of 56

1 action with respect to Plaintiffs' and the class members benefits, and then taking adverse action

2 with respect to Plaintiffs' SSA benefits regardless of whether Plaintiffs and the class members

3 actually receive the telephone call. This policy denies Plaintiffs and the class members notice and

4 an opportunity to be heard with respect to determinations and actions affecting their SSA benefits.

5 As a result, Defendants' conduct has deprived and continues to deprive Plaintiffs and the class

6 members ofSSA benefits to which they are entitled, without due process oflaw.

7

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request relief as set forth below.

8

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: DECLARATORY RELIEF

9

102. Paragraphs 1-101 are each re-alleged and incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

1 0

103. Defendants have and continue to fail to provide Plaintiffs and'the class members

11 information in accessible formats about their individual benefits, SSA benefits publication

12 materials, and the rules governing SSA benefits programs in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of

13 1973, and continues to suspend or terminate the benefits of Plaintiffs and the class members

14 without meaningful notice in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the

15 United States Constitution.

16

104. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate in order that the parties know

17 their rights and duties and act accordingly.

18

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request relief as set forth below.

19

PRAYERFORRELIEF

20

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court:

21

I. Certify at an appropriate time that this suit is properly maintainable as a class action

22 pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and/or (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

23

2. Declare that Defendants' failure to offer SSA benefits information in accessible

24 formats to blind and visually impaired applicants, beneficiaries, recipients, and representative

25 payees of SSA benefits programs violates section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the

26 Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment;

27

3. Declare that Defendants have a duty to provide equal and meaningful access to all

28 SSA benefits information (including information about individual benefits and SSA publications

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 25 of 56

1 about its programs and rules) in formats that are accessible to blind and visually impaired persons,

2 including Braille, large print, electronic mail, computer disks, and audio tape recordings;

3

4. Grant a permanent injunction, requiring Defendants, their successors in office,

4 agents, assigus, representatives, employees and all persons acting in concert therewith, including

5 state agencies responsible for disability determinations, to provide equal and meaningful access to

6 all SSA benefits information (including information about individual benefits and SSA publications

7 about its programs and rules) in appropriately secure formats that are accessible to blind and

8 visually impaired persons, including Braille, large print, electronic mail, computer disks, and audio

9 tape recordings;

10

5. For costs of the suit herein;

11

6. For reasonable attorneys' fees; and

12

7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

13 November 16, 2005

Respectfully submitted,

14

HELLER EHRMAN LLP

15

DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND DEFENSE

16

FBUNyD !J~~

17

WONDIE RUSSELL

18

Attorneys For Plaintiffs

19 Additional Co-Counselfor Plaintifft:
GERALD A. MCINTYRE (Bar No. 181746)
20 JEANNE FINBERG (Bar No. 88333) 21 NATIONAL SENIOR CITIZENS LAW CENTER
3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2860
22 Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone:+ 1.213.639.0930
23 Facsimile: +1.213.639.0934
gmcintyre@nsclc.org 24
KATHLEEN L. WILDE (Oregon Bar No. 97105) (Pro Hac Vice Application To Follow)
25 OREGON ADVOCACY CENTER
620 SW Fifth Avenue, Fifth Floor
26 Portland, OR 97204
27 Telephone: +1.503.243.2081 Facsimile: +1.503.243.1738
28 kwilde@oradvocacv.org

24 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 26 of 56

1

CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS

2

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-16, the undersigned certifies that as of this date, other than the
3

named parties, there is no such interest to report.

4

November 16, 2005

HELLER EHRMAN LLP

5

6 7

DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND DEFENSE

t7u By~ FUND

~

8

WONDIE RUSSELL

Attorneys For Plaintiffs

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

25
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 27 of 56

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2

I, Gary Padilla, declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and I am not a party to this

3 action. My business address is 333 Bush Street, 30'h Floor, San Francisco, California, 94104.

4

On November 16, 2005, I caused the documents listed below to be served on the interested

parties in this action enclosed in a sealed envelope and/or by facsimile transmission, addressed as

5 indicated below:

6

JoAnne B. Barnhart

7

Social Security Administration

c/o General Counsel's Office

8

Room 611, Altmeyer Building

6401 Security Boulevard

9

Baltimore, MD 21235

10
DOC~ENTSSERVED:
11 CIVIL COVER SHEET
12

13

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

14 [ l
15
16 [X] 17 [ l
18 19 20 21

BY OVERNIGHT DELNERY: I caused such envelopes to be delivered to the above parties via FEDERAL EXPRESS PRIORITY OVERNIGHT delivery service.
BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused the document(s) to be delivered by hand.
BY MAIL: I am readily familiar with the business practice for collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. I know that the correspondence was deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day this declaration was executed in the ordinary course ofbusiness. I know that the envelopes were sealed, and with postage thereon fully prepaid, placed for collection and mailing on this date, following ordinary business practices, in the United States mail at San Francisco, California. I caused the document(s) to be sent by mail via United States Postal Service to the parties identified above.

22 [ l
23 24
25 26

BY FACSIMILE: By use of facsimile machine, I served a copy of the above listed document(s) on the above-listed interested parties in the within action by transmitting by facsimile machine to the following: The facsimile machine I used complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 2003(3) and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2005, I caused the machine to print a transmission record of
the transmission, a copy of which is attached to this declaration.

27

28

PROOF OF SERVICE

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 28 of 56

1

I declare under penalty of peijury under the Jaws of the United States of America that the

foregoing is true and correct; that this declaration is executed on November 16, 2005, at San

2 Francisco, California.

3

4

Gary Padilla

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-1PROOF OF SERVICE

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 29 of 56
Exhibit 1 is the Braille version of the complaint which is not attached hereto. The Braille version ofthe complaint is on file with Court.
EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 30 of 56
EXHIBIT 2

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 31 of 56

Social Security Administration

Supplemental Security Income

Notice of Planned Action

Date: September 15, 2004

Claim Number: -- -

967
ALICE MAJORIE DONOVAN

*Type of Eligibility• Individual-Blind

We are writing to tell you about changes in your Supplemental Security

· Income payments. The following chart shows the SSI money d"\ie you for the

months we changed. As you can see from the chart, we are changing your

payments for botn past and future months. The rest ofthis letter will tell you

more about this change;

· · •. -__ - : · · ·

Your Paymen~s Will Be ChangedAs Follows:

From

Through

Amount Due Each Month

March 1, 2003

May 31, 2003

$0,00

October 1, 2003

October 31, 2003

$0.00

March 1, 2004

May 31, 2004

$0.00

August 1, 2004

Continuing

$0.00

We will stop your payments as shown above beginning October 2()04.

Why Your Payments Changed

• We find that you have resources worth more than $2,000.00 for March 2003 through May 2003, $2,000.00 for October 2003, $2,000.00 for March 2004 through May 2004 and $2,000.00 for August 2004 on.

For you to continue to receive SSI payments, the resources. that you own cannot be worth more than $2,000.00 for March 2003 through · May 2003, $2,000.00 for October 2003, $2,000.00 for March 2004 through May 2004 and $2,000.00 for August 2004 on. We call this amount the limit on resources.

SSA-L8155

See Next Page EXHIBIT2

Q9/15/2004

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 32 of 56 Page .2 of 5

Resources are the things that you own such as cash, stocks, bank
accounts, certain types of life insurance, buildings, and land on which you do not live. We do not include as resources the home in which you live, one car used for necessary activities, and some other things.

• Although your resources would prevent. you from receiving payments, you may still be able to receive SSI while you are trying to sell your
resources if all of the following are true.

The value of cash, including savings, and other things you have that can easily be changed mto cash is less than $1,692.00.

You have other things that cannot easily be cha~ged into cash and these things make your resources too ·high. Examples of such things are a building or land on which you do not live. ·

You will sign a written agreement which allows you to receive SSI payments while you are. trying to sell th~ property that causes.. . your resources to ~e. over .the limit. · ·. ·.· ··... · · · · · ·.

You agree to repay any SSipayments which you receive while

trying to sell the property.

· ·

If you think all of these are true about you, and you want to receive SSI payments, please contact the local Social Security office. .

Your SSI Is Based On These Facts

• You had monthly income of $6,347.04 for June 2004. This amount does not affect your Supplemental Security Income payment.

• You had monthly income which must be considered in figuring your

eligibility as follows:

·

.

· ·

Your wages of $9,067.20 for July 2004.

• In figuring your payment, your income to meet work expenses was·

disregarded as follows- $4,395.03 for July 2004. · . •.

. .

Information About Medicaid

For information about any change in your Medicaid eligibility caused by this action, you should get in touch with the county welfare department. · · ·

You Can Review The Information in Your Case

The decisions in this letter are based on the law. You have a right to review

and get copies of the information in our records that we used to make the ·

decisiOns explained in this letter. You also have a right to review and copy

the laws, regulations and policy statements used in deciding your case. To do

so, please contact us. Our telephone number and address are shown under the

heading "If You Have Any Questions." .. . .

.

SSA·L8!55

09/15/2004

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 33 of 56 . Page 3 of 5

Things To Remember

e We may be .in touch with you later about any payments we previously made.

e This determination replaces all previous determinations for the above periods.

• If you think you may be eligible for SSI again, please contact us. If

you do not contact us before August 2005, yoJl may have to file a new

application. If you have to file a new application, the earliest month

for which we can pay you is the month after.you file. · .

.

If You Disagree With The Decision

If you disagree with the decision, you have the right to appeal. We will review your case and consider any new facts you }).ave. ·

e You have 60 days to ask for an appeal.

•

•

<

• The 60 days start the day after you get this letter. We assume you got

this letter 5 days after the date on it unless you show us that you d1d

not get itwi~}).in the 5-day period.

. -..- ·- . ~ . . .

-·

• you must have a good reasoil for waiting mor.e than 60 days to ask for an appeal.

• To appeal, you must flll out a form called "Request for
Reconsideration." The form number is SSA-561. To get this form, contact one of our offices. We can help you fill out the form.

Appeal In 10 Days To Keep Getting The Same Check

If you appeal within 10 days, you will continue to get the same check amount

until we decide your case.

·

e The 10 days start the day after you get this letter.

• If you lose your appe;;~J, you might have to pay back some or all of this money.

However, even if you appeal in 10 days, we may stop the check in October 2004 as shown on page 1 if both of the following are true:

• Our new decision is the same as the one appealed, and

• We send or give you a letter with our new decision in time to stop the check.

SSA-18155

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 34 of 56

09/15/2004

Page 4 of 5

How .To Appeal

There are three ways with .!:!!!. in person, it

to appeal. You can pick the may help us--aei:ineyour ~

one

you

want.

If you ~

e

Case Review. You h!lve a righ~ can gwe us inore facts to add to again. You won't meet with the

to review the facts in your f:tle. Then we'll person who decides y

your file. You decide your case our case.

e

Ipgcnaeivifoioeep.rJmuesYatolmouCo:Pro,ceenalpfnfeaertc4eetPnsl}cl!tqet1~.h1ahY!te0plo1p1\e1lr'p:lsl.rcoo;m.navseeewe.:yht-oywu_yi'rtohe_urthitghehi_npt.ek.rsy.Yo.oonuu1.wr.cehaorn_il'.dbiher_tci._nidg-eY·soot.yuh_o_eCur!.r.ln_ .

o

mdFdcaoioefnnfreem'tmtrineawanglkca.CeenottI;hSnt'oefwemrheeenblccrpaeinn.ygomTuiha.m·kispeYoiopsrtueaaoncpmtalenpeaecqptouiemnergsestiltaoiobknoehutehatlnepysioepnurfporoevrcomeapsylaeelo, uace'otrvneeyfnoerirugfe_rfnhtcth.ee. yWTehe

If You Want Help With Your Appeal

tTlaYohplociapeauteil:ae.c£lS.a!a!on!r!cehhiaeaallvpsSeoeYacfuaufwrriifytemynerddos,f.fw!l!iachlweaoynhe,aroesron11r.oQlts!ios~cmtvaoeerofgnygeeroouueunlfpslreesesehtsh.elylaepotguaycloawusnme. hmeyTlcopheuesyrreoiafupapyrweeo1iu1tglh.rqouyuYaopluoisfruyr.

·

wIfeymouusgtetapspormoveoentehetofeheelbpefyoorue,

yo he

u should let us know. or 11he can collect it.

If you hire someone,

If You Have Any Questions

·-oFentorgrtilgbieeilniItneytreaarlnnitent·tfS.oSrmTI phaaetiyroemn, ey~no;t~uoboauwlttli.oSlluSuaI,tlssv.oisfimt doutrhewela·bwsitaenadt-rwe-gw-u-wl-a.s-t'l?-oc-nias·lsaebcuoruitt-YS..-SgIov SmamaFnetooascr6nywu5tgrh0ecie-,rat5nylsl7leto9loruo-af4issfl5fitc4tqyoeq1uo.l.uleue-sfrTOstrtihebiouoeeunrnssaosliintfanfoebi1evsc-sos-ee8ura0ctt0rhta-eShn-a7Setb7wI2ups-aoes1hii2rrotev1,nss3eep,tis.teoe'ycsarioYrfbcluioeycarusllitqancurytaeoeotnashutceiriaaosllwlsnlolosoecaecawtaklabrotSoieattpudohe_tcedaioryater:otlaivumSrilreseyccistuai.nsraeinWtt,yhyyeeoSocfuofacincieal

SOCIAL SECURITY SUITE 101 800 SOUTH CLAREMONT ST SAN MATEO CA 94402

SSA-18155

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 35 of 56

09/15/2004

Page 5 of 5

Iuafshyeaoandustwdooermc;yJa.okllueor arqnvueiasspittpiooaninns.tomfAfeinclste.o, ,pTilfehayissoeuwhipalllvahenetlthpoisuvsilsesitteteravrnewoyifotfhiuceym,oouyr.oeuIqJturuiw!C.Yiklllcyahlellp when you arrive at the office.
U;6.~
linda S. McMahon
.Deputy Coimnissioner for Operations

' . .. ·. -.

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 36 of 56
EXHIBIT 3

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 37 of 56

.

Social Security Administration

Supplemental Security Income

Important Information

·

Date: April 19, 2005

Claim Number: --

A88
MARVELENA C QUESADA

*Type of Payment• Individual-Blind
We are writing to tell you about changes in your Supplemental Security Income record. The rest of this letter will tell you more about this change.
Information About Your Payments
• As we told you before, we are withholding part of your check to get back money you were overpaid. Starting May 2005, we will start withholding $89.40. Therefore, you will receive a check for $72.60 about the first day of the month starting in May 2005.
• The $89.40 we will withhold is 10 percent of your SSI money plus any other money we use in figuring your SSI. If you want us to withhold more or less, please call or visit your Social Security office.
You Can Review The Information in Your Case
The decisions in this letter are based on the law. You have a right to review and get copies of the information in our records that we used to make the decisions explained in this letter. You also have a right to review and copy the laws, regulations and policy statements used in deciding your case. To do so, please contact us. Our telephone number and address are shown under the heading "If You Have Any Questions."
Things To Remember
• This decision refers only to your claim for Supplemental Security Income payments.
• Would you like to work? If so, you should know about special Supplemental Security Income (SSI) rules. These rules can help you keep Medicaid and may help you keep getting some SSI even though you are working. The enclosed fact sheet tells you more about special SSI rules for people who work.

SSA·L8lti6

See Next Page

EXHffiiT3

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 38 of 56

M/19/2005

Page 2 of 5

If You Disagree With The Decision If you disagree with the decision, you have the right to appeal. We will review your case and consider any new facts you have.

• You have 60 days to ask for an appeal.

•

The this

60 days letter 5

start days

the day after after the date

you get this on it unless

letter. We assume you got you show us that you did

not get it within the 5-day period.

• You must have a good reason for waiting more than 60 days to ask for an appeal.

•

To appeal, you must fill out a form called "Request for Reconsideration." The form number is SSA-561. To get contact one of our offices. We can help you fill out the

this form, form.

How To Appeal

There are two ways to appeal. You can pick the one you want. with ~ in person, it may help us deCiUe your case.

If you meet

-

--

•

Case Review. You have a right can gtve us more facts to add to again. You won't meet with the the only kind of appeal you can

to review the facts in your file. You your file. Then we'll decide your case person who decides your case. This is have to appeal a medical decision.

• Igcnaivfsoeer.musYalmouCoorcenafnfeartceetnslcl etto.hahYteolppue'rplslroomnveeweythowyuiy'troheutrhitghehinpt.ekrsyYooonuu'wrcehaornigdbhertci.nidgeYsootyuhoecurarn people to help explain your case.

If You Want Help With Your Appeal You can have a friend, lawyer or someone else help you. There are grou!ls tTlahoplaclpeta.er£lae!lS!.a!o!rceihaeallpsSoeyclauuwrifytiyenrdos.f!fw!ichleaorhaa,oesrnaoolrtisgctkvaoerfgygeorouuunfplresesetshlyaeogt uaclawsnemrhVeyIlcopeusyrotafupypwoeiuatlh.quyYao·uoifruyr. If you get someone to help you, you should let us know. If you hire someone, we must approve the fee before he or she can collect it.

If You Have Any Questions

For general information on the Internet. There,

about SSI, visit our website at you will also find the law and

www.socialsecurity.gov regulations about SSI

eligibility and SSI payment amounts.

SSAcL8t66

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 39 of 56

o4/19/2oo5

Page 3 of 5

FmmSaa ntoeaoscr6ynwu5tgr0hceei-a,rt9nly9selmo4rou-oa2fsilsf0fti2tqcyo4qeuol..uelu-esfrOsTtritebhouieouenrnssaloisitnfanfoebe1isvco-ss8eeu0artct0rhat-eSh7naS7ebt2Iwu-ps1osaeh2iirroe1tv,3nssep,teiset.oe'cysarioYrfbcliuocyearusllqitanucyrtaeoeotsnhautceiraiaoslwllnsollsoecoaeaacwtklbaortoSaiettuonhdetcdeiaoyraetorl:taiuvrmSrlieyesccsiauit.nsraeiWntt, yhyyeeooScfuofaiccnieal SOCIAL SECURITY SUITE 201 355 GELLERT BLVD DALY CITY CA 94015

If you do call or visit an office, us answer your questions. Also, ahead to make an appointment.

please have this letter with you. It will help if you plan to visit an office, you may call This will help us serve you more quickly

when you arrive at the office.

U;6.~
Linda S. McMahon Deputy Commissioner
for Operations

Enclosure(s ): SSI Rules That Help You Work

3-. -
g-
=,!.~..
~i j §
.. -z ;o; !--!
.~. !=
.:,:1=-
2; iii
~.0 .,=--
~ §
i ;;

;;; !!

-~ i
:!:~

g
g g g

i==
;;

§

: i -

;; !!

SSA-L8166

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 40 of 56

..

o'4/19/2005

Page 4 of 5

SSI Rules That Help You Work

We w rules rules

ant to tell you about some special that can help you while you are w

Supplemental Security orking or if you begin

Income (SSI) working. These

can help you get or keep Medicaid and may help you keep getting some

SSI even though you are working.

How Your SSI May Change If You Work

If you work full-time or part-time and make $65 or less each month, your SSI

will SSI

usually not change. As will go down. However,

the money you if you have no

earn from your job goes other income (money or

up, your support),

you can earn up to $1,822.99 a month and still get at least $1 in SSI.

If You Stop Working or Start Earning Less

I

If you stop working_or start e can increase your SSI checks,

arning less, please or start your SSI

let and

us know r Medicaid

ight away. We again if they

have stopped. You may not even have to file a new application.

Medicaid

If you get Medicaid, it will usually continue as long as you get SSI. SSI stops because you begin earning too much money, you can often

If your keep

getting Medicaid as long as the following are true:

.

• You continue to be disabled or blind under our rules; and

• You can't pay your medical bills without Medicaid.

We Don't Count Some of Your Earnings Used for Work Expenses

The earnings income. For

you use example,

for we

some of your working expenses may not sometimes don't count earnings used to

count as pay for

transportation to and from work. Also, we don't count the cost of special

equipment that helps you to work.

A Plan Can Help

You may be able to keep more of your SSI if you develop a special plan to

support yourself. We call this a plan to achieve self-support (PASS). This

plan lets you For example,

set you

aside may

money for a certain amount of time set aside money to start a business,

for a go to

work goal. school, or get

training for a job.

·

We don't count what you set aside when we figure your SSI. This can help keep you on SSI or help you get more SSI. A PASS may also help someone you know qualify for SSI.

SSA-L8166

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 41 of 56
. -

04/19/2005

Page 5 of 5

If You Need Help Finding a Job We can ask someone who offers vocational rehabilitation services to help you fmd a job or give you training.
If You Want To Know More If you want to know more about these rules, contact any Social Security office and ask to speak to someone about work incentives.

SSA-L8166

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 42 of 56
EXHIBIT 4

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 43 of 56

Sociai Security Administration

Supplemental Security Income

·

SOCJ.AL SECURITY

355 GELLERT BLVD

SUITE 201 ·

DALY CITY, CA 94015

Cl.a.hn NUiiiber:

January 7, 2005 •

JOG

MARVELENAQUESADA

I
1

This is a very important letter about keeping your Supplemental Security Income (SSI) case active. Please read it carefully. Ifthere .is anything you do not · unde'rstand,. p-lease get in toueh with us-right-away; · ... ··· · - · - ··

What You Need To Do

We need mote information to decide ifwe can continue to pay you SSI. Therefore, it

is important that you do the following:

·

• Come to see us on January 12, 2005 and ask for Mrs.. oflice address is:

• The

SOCIAL SECURITY SUITE201 355 GELLERT BLVD DALY CITY, CA 94015

IfWe Don't Hear From You

We may stop your SSI ifyou don't respond to this request or contact us by January

12, 2005 to tell us why. Hwe stop your SSI, you could also lose any Medicaid you

\!ave nqw. . . . .. .

·

Before we stop your SSI, we will send you another letter to explain our decision. The letter will also explain your right to apl)eal the decision and how to continue getting
SSI during the appeal.

• Bank statements: savings and checking accounts, and any other bank
statements .

• Unemployment compensation payment records .

See Next Page

EXHIBIT4

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 44 of 56
Page2 of2
• Unemployment compensationpayment records. Householder statement completed and signed by Irene Desha.
this When you call or come in, please have letter with you.
IfYou Have Any Questions Ifyou have any questions or need help, please call us at 650-994-2024 x 3014 and ask for Mrs.. -
,?'/~ .Ledle
Adria Leslie District Manager

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 45 of 56
EXHIBIT 5

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 46 of 56

• •
Social Security Administration

•

Supplemental Security Income

Notice of Planned Action

Date: Augl:lst 5; 2003 Claim Number:

932 0729,M10,042,006451

090006451 01 MB 0.309

TAMMY R COOPER

*Type of Eligibility* Individual-Disabled

WImpnaoceyonammtrheeesntpwwsaeryfiotmcirhneafgnuntttgsuo.erdetT.emlhlAeoysnfootyuhlolsoau.wbcoiTnauhgnte' cscrehheeaasnrtfgtrooesfmshtoihtnwhisseyoltcehuhtertaeSSrrtuS,wpIwpimlelleomatnereeleylnotydanoullueyS

ecurity you for the changing your more about

this change.

Your Payments Will Be Changed As Follows:

From

Thi-ot.igli.

Amount Due Each Month

August 1, 2003

Continuing

$0.00

Why Your Payments Are Stopping

We are stopping the checks because we need correct information about your name, address or bank account.

Please contact your Social Security office as soon as possible.

Informatfn About Medicaid

. -)

For information about · action, you should get

any change in in touch with

tyhoeurcoMunetdyicwaiedlfealriegidbeipliatrytmcaeunst.ed

by

this

You Can Review The Information in Your Case
··tTdashhonehee,cdaeipdlsgdaliteneeowactgnssisc,se"oiIeropcfexniogYpesnulsoatilauanionctfiHettohtdauhnivsseis.neliaenAtnOhtfdtnoiuesyrprrmolQtaeelaritultceteieeyopsrbnth.saiootsiannneYtesdeo.om"unouuenra·mnlrttsehbsoceeourhlrsaaadevwnsded.tihanaYadrdtodieguwrcehieshtdsai·utnvoasgereredyeavostrhoiuieorgwmwhcatnaakstnueeod.ntrd·hceTeoevropieytdhwoe

SSA-L81SS

See Next Page

EXIDBITS

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 47 of 56

•
08/05/2003

•

·Page 2or

Things To Remember

• We may be in touch with you later about any payments we previously made.

• This decision refers only to your claim for Supplemental Security Income payments.

• This determination replaces all previous determinations for the above periods.

•

Iyaffoporypulowiduchoaittcnhihooinntwk. ceoyIncofatuyanocmtupaauhyysabvybeeoeufetoloiirgsefiitbAlheleueagfmuonsoretnwS2tS0ha0Ip4aa,pfgtlyeiacorianuyt,iomopunla,efyi~tlhheea.evceeoantrtolaiecfsitlteumsa.onnIetfhw

If You Disagree With The Decision

If you review

disagree w your case

iatnhdt hceondseidciesrioann, yy onue wh afva cet st hyeorui ghhatv et o.

appeal.

We will

• You have 60 days to ask for an appeal.

• tTnhohiste.g6lee0tttdieatryw5s isdthtaaiynrstatthfhetee5rd-tadhyaeyapdfteaertireoy<ootnu

g it

et this unless

letter. We assume you g?t you show us that you did ·

• You must have a good reason for waiting more than 60 days to ask for an appeal.

• RTcooencaotapncpsteidaoeln,reaytooioufnom."uursTot hfffeiilclfeoso.nuntWnaeufmocrabmnerhcieasllplSeSdyAo"-uR56ef1iql.ul eoTsutotfgotherte

this fonn, fonn. .

Appeal In 10 Day5 To Keep Getting The Same Check

If you appeal within until we decide your

10 days, case.

you

will

continue

to

get

the

same

check ·

amount

• The 10 days start the day after you get this letter.

• If you lose your appeal, you might have to pay back .some or aU of this money.

However, even if you appeal September 2003 as shown on

in 10 page

days, we 1 if both

may stop the check of the following are

in true:

• Our new decision is the same as the one appealed, and

• We send or give you a letter with our new decision in time to stop the check.

SSA-L8155

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 48 of 56

'

•

. ' .'

• Page 3 of 4

08/05/2003

How To Appeal

There a with ~

re three ways in person, it

to ma

appeal. You y help· usde'C

can pick the iae-Iour ~

~

you

want.

If you !lli!.!tl

• Ccaaganasiengi.RVeeYviuoesuwm.wooYrneo'tufmahceatsevtetowaiatrdhigdthhttoetypooeruresrvoifneilwwe.htohTedheefacncidtwsesei'nlyloyduoercuicrdaefsielye.o. uYr ocause

•

Igpcnaeivfsooeepr.l.muesYatlmoouCohorecenlapfnfearetcexetnpslclletato.ihnahYyteoolppuue'rprlslrcoomanvseeewe. ythowyuirtr_heou.trhitghehinpt.ekrsyYooonuu'wrcehaornigdbhertci.nidgeYsootyuho.ecurarn'

•

Fdcdiaoofnrnfme'mtraewalnkacCeenotttnhstfeoewmrheenebcclrpem~.ygo~Tutahm.kisepYoiposreluaaonpcmtalenpe~ecqptoiuemnregsestltiaiookbneohuteahtlnepysiopenurfoprovercoemapsyaleelo,ucae'otrvneyefnoerirug1er:fnhtcth.ee.

The
We y

meeting.

If You Want Help· With Your Appeal

YTtlhohoaceuta'£rlec!S!aa!no!rcehhiaeaallvpsSe.oeyaclouafurwriitfeyymne·d·rdos, f!fwl.iachlwaeoWyhdeYaroseronar;oQlstIiosgcmtt."eaoeorfgnygeeorouueulnfsplreesesehtshelyleapgotauy.cloawusnem. rhVTeyIlohcpeuesyrre.otafuapyrpweoe. uiagtlhr.qouyuYao~suoifruy.r. appeal.

wIfeymouusgteat pspormoveoentehetofeheelbpefyoorue,

you should let us know. he or she can collect it.

If you hire someone,

If You Have Any Questions

----.

you·~ Foe.lnoigrtihgbeeilniIetnyrtaealrrniidneftS.oSrmIThpaetairyoemn, eyanobtuoauwmt ioSlluSnIa,tlssv.oisfimt do

ur th

website at e law and
.

www.socialsecurit~.gov

regulations about SSI

.

. i

mFaaltoasryo1-g5wce0a3rnli-elt3!e2ua6sol-5rtq0ouv1lel8i-ss.fitrtieWoeannesaytcaaSb1noo-8cu0ait0an-lSs7wS7S2Iee-rc1ou2mr1r3isot,psyetocorqiffufciiecacsleqtl.iuoyenTossuhtireoovlnooesfcrfaiatclbheoSetuohptcahiyatoolnsueSer.revcceaYussroeiyut,yoCuo3rflflaicreea

is located at:

SOCIAL SECURITY 1538 SW YAMHILL ST PORTLAND OR 97205

· SSA-LBI55

• •

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 49 of 56

•

•

Page 4 of 4

08/05/2003

Iuwafshhyeeaoanndusywtdoooeurmcayaarolkrluievorearqnvautieassptithtpioeoaninonsf.tofmifcAfeeincl.ste.o, ,pTilfehayissoeuwhiplallvahenettlhpoisuvsilsesitteteravrnewoyifotfhiuceym,oouyr.oeuIqtmuwiacyiklllcyahlellp
~;&.~
Linda S. McMahon Deputy Commissioner · for Operations

SSA·L8155

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 50 of 56
EXHIBIT 6

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 51 of 56

Social Security Administration Supplemental Security Income

Notice of Overpayment

SOCIAL SECURITY 1538 SW YAMHILL ST PORTLAND, OR 97205
Claim Number: September 30, 2003
D6

TAMMY R COOPER

We are writing to let you know Supplemental Security Income

that we have (SSI) money.

paid you $3,173.80 too much The overpaylilent happened August

2002 to July 2003.

YO20ou0ur3wT. eeYcroeorudresmcseohivvoeiwdngStotShCIewaClaifasolnirfnooitranaJiwaualsyruep2op0f0ley2moauenrndrterpetautyurmnrnteeondOt tfrooerOgAorneugguounnsttiAl2tA0;t0ug2gusutots2tJ02u00l2y0.3·; therefore, this created outstanding overpayment.
Later in this letter, we'll give you a detailed explanation of your ov~t:PaYm.ent.

Ywdiorsouangmgreuaesbtwopuiatthythtuheseobdvaeeccfkpisauiyonmnleeasnbstow.uIetftdyheoecuiodtveheiyrnopkuayysmohuoeusnhltd,onyu'oltduhnac'vat neh:atoveptaoypuasybuasckbaocrkwoer_are

Ask for a waiver,

Ask for an appeal, or·

Do both.
This letter will tell you more about these things you can do.
IfWe Don't Hear From You In The Next 30 Days We plan to rollect this overpayment from your SSI checks. More information will .follow.·
Ifyou ask for waiver or appeal in the next 30 days, we won't yhange your check until we decide the case

See Next Page

EXHIBIT6

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 52 of 56

· Page 2of4

IfYou Think You Shouldn't Have To Pay Us Back

You may not have to overpayment, which

pay us means

back. Sometimes you won't have to

we can pay us

waive the back. We

collection ofan can do this if both

of

the following are true.

It wasn't your fault that you got too much SSI money.

Paying us back would ·medical care, or other

mean you necessary

can't pay your expenses, or it

bills for food, clothing, housing, would be unfair for some other

·

reason.

IffSoofSrryAmow-ua6i sti3vh2cei.anrlWklaeettdhawReniseylelqtbuai meer eshettafbrpouyprecyWoatbmoaoiphvuleetelrtypioonyfugRo, tuechcofeoinlvwlt aeoarcuiytvtaoetnrrhyfeCoSfhromoarcnmiaga.nelWdSi nereecRwtueuroprintnay'yitnomcfgofeilicnlteettc.oRtYtauohtsuee. ,cTFahonerams k
overpayment while we decide if we can waive it.

IfYou Disagree With The Decision Ifyou disagree with the decision, you have the right to appeal. We will review your case and look at any new facts you have.

You have 60 days to ask for an appeal.

The 1)0 days start the day after days after the date on it unless

you you

get this letter. We assume you show us that you did not get it

got this letter 5 Withih the 5-day

period.

You must have a good reason for waiting more than 60 days to ask fur an appeal.

To appeal, you must number is SSA-561. out the form.

Tfiollgoeutttahifsofromrmca, lcleodnt"aRcet qouneesot ffooruRr oefcfoicnessi.dWeraetcioann."heTlhpey.fouurmfill ·

How To Appeal There are three ways to appeal. You can pick the one you want. If you meet with us in person. it may help us decide your case .

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 53 of 56

Page 3 of4

Case facts

Review. to add to

You have your file.

a right to review the facts in your Then we will decide your case aga

file. You can in. You won't

give· us more meet with

the person who decides your.case.

Ityneolfulo'trrhmearatilgpChetor.snYofneoruwecnhacyney.boYruiontuhg'liolnmtkheeyerotpuwe'roeitphrliegththoet.hpYeelorpsuoecnxapwnlhagioinvdeyeoucusidrmecsoaysreeo.ufarcctassteo.

You help

can prove

wFimoerpcmoarantlamCnatokpnfeaeppreeernoscpealeb. coTouhmtiyseoitsuorahcmealspeee,ptreionvvgeenliykifoetuha'rneeyirndigfoohnrt'm.t Wwalaecnoctnatfnoemrheean]kcpeey.toThuhe.emYdobifurfiecnragennce is question these people at your meeting

IfYou Want Help With Your Appeal
Yhlhaeaowlsupyacyealroinsuswhtfoaihnvfodegdraaoolufnarpiwoestnytc(ehihr,aaoltracrgwaegyniuvenehr,leyeolopsrsuysyfooromueueewwolienitgnheayyel olosseuuerrrvhaaiepcplepppseeyaaiofll..uyY.oTuohuqeruraSeloiacfyria~elTgSrheoecurupersiattryheoaaftflsiccoaen
If you get someone to help you, you should let us know. If you hire ~omeone, we
must approve the fee before he or she can collect it._

How To Pay Us Back There are two ways you can pay us back. .. A$wm5sio5twrh.e2oe0tushetaaayindcohu1era0mrcplooienenrrtsch,eewnDntet.eocpCfelomyannobtuateorcrtth2ouo0tsla0dli3fibnuyacnocotukmilwmeth.aoneTnteeoaynvefdprrieopfrmfaceyerymenonteutinrsatmStihsSoeIpumcanhitodehscbtekawl.cdWekb.caeTa'clnhkl ih.hsooillsddnbboaatcckk -

AooSofrrendycmoeoutoruhrnitretoeyroyuwvnoseua.rrmypdAaetblosyreomopr, uaoebtynnettuoisotsu.tfrhb$Peea3lect,So1ako7seice3sni.acut8olls0oeS.sseeetPchnatuehdyreieiuntnpsygcaaAluyocdsmshmeteedhicninekstinssowvttreuraalmbyot ipoiwosennievtt.oyhoBloymueronadsuituerlarrtrcehfvhoet.erocMctkphhaueoekctrfekyumtoolholurenarmemcSyohoonecuecinyaktl order

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 54 of 56

Page 4of4

IfYou Have Any Questions

For general information Internet. There you will

about SSI, visit our website at www.ssa.gov also find the law and regulations about SSI

on the eligibility

and

SSI payment amounts.

Fu5s0o1rto9gl.elI-nfferyeroeaulaqctua1el-ls8to0iro0vn-7iss7ia2tb-oo1u2ur1t o3SfSfoiIrceco,arplsllpeyeaocsuiefribclorqicnuagel sStthoioicsnialsleaSttbeeocruuwtriyittoyhuoyrfofciuacesaena, dty5oa0us3km-3foa2ry6M-casl.l

~M4&wdett.
Randy Crockett Field Office Manager

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 55 of 56

A Detailed Explanation Of The Overpayment

. Overpayment Summary

WAecoamecluhoomuvmnenortspnfhaotohirdw.ETysaohtchuehe$fMi.a3rmso,1tno7ct3uoh.nl8sut0hmw.oTnewhlpsieastfhtiosdeltylhaoomweuiomnfuogornntetathawb(cleseh)smswhhooeounwpltdashi.hhdT~oyvwhoeeuyploiaanusicrtdopcyroaroelyuucmmtfloeynrn., etTCachocherharnneegcxtetd month.

Month
August 2002 September 2002 October 2002 November 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March2003 April2003 May2003 June 2003 July2003

Incorrect Amount Paid $604.00 $604.00 $604.00 . $604.00
$604.00 $608.00 $608.00 $608.00 $608.00 $608.00 $607.30 $607.30

Correct Amount Due $320.00 $320.00 $320.00 $320.00 $320.00 $324.00 $324.00 $324.00 $324.00 $324.00 $324.00 $324.00

Why You Were Overpaid California Supplement payment for August 2002 to July 2003 caused overpayment.

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 1 Filed 11/16/05 Page 56 of 56
•
·-
PAYMENT STUB To help us credit your record, please fill out this form and return it with your payment in the enclosed envelope.
NAME: TAMMY R COOPER ACCOUNT NUMBER: AMOUNT DUE:$3,173.80 ENTER AMOUNT ENCLOSED$._ _ _ _ __

 
 Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 1 of 53
ADRMOP,CLOSED,E−Filing,REFSET−EMC
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:05−cv−04696−WHA

American Council of the Blind et al v. Astrue et al Assigned to: Hon. William Alsup Referred to: Hon. Edward M. Chen (Settlement) Cause: 29:0794 Job Discrimination (Handicap)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/16/2005 Date Terminated: 10/20/2009 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

American Council of the Blind a District of Columbia non−profit corporation

represented by Adil Haq Severson &Werson One Embarcadero Center 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 415−677−5679 Fax: 415−956−0439 Email: ahaq@schiffhardin.com TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Henry C. Su Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Mail Drop H−524 Washington, DC 20580−0002 202/326−3659 Fax: 202/326−3446 Email: hsu@ftc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wondie Russell Wondie Russell, Esq. San Francisco, CA (415) 626−3906 Email: wondie.russell@yahoo.com TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ann Kathleen Miller Howrey LLP 1950 University Ave 4th Fl East Palo Alto, CA 94303 650−798−3618 Fax: 650−798−3600 Email: millerak@howrey.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arlene Brynne Mayerson Disability Rights Education &Defense Fund, Inc. 3075 Adeline Street, Suite 210 Berkeley, CA 94703 (510) 644−2555 Fax: (510) 841−8645 Email: AMayerson@dredf.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 2 of 53
Catherine Picard Rosen Heller, Ehrman, White &McAuliffe LLP 333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 772−6156 Email: catherine.rosen@hellerehrman.com TERMINATED: 03/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charlotte L. Lanvers Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc. 3075 Adeline Street Suite 210 Berkeley, CA 94710 510−644−2555 Fax: 510−841−8645 Email: clanvers@dredf.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Marieiro Cardoso Heller Ehrman LLP 333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104 415−772−6219 Fax: 415−772−6268 Email: denise.cardoso@hellerehrman.com TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esta Lynne Brand Covington &Burling LLP 1 Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415−591−7022 Email: ebrand@cov.com TERMINATED: 09/09/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald Andrew McIntyre National Senior Citizens Law Center 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2860 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−639−0390 Fax: 213−639−0934 Email: GMCINTYRE@NSCLC.ORG ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob Nathaniel Foster Heller Ehrman LLP 333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104 America 415−772−6359 Fax: 415−772−6268 Email: jfoster@kasowitz.com TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne Finberg State Attorney General's Office 1515 Clay Street Suite 2000 Oakland, CA 94612

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 3 of 53
510−622−2147 Fax: 510−622−2121 Email: Jeanne.Finberg@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer C. Lu Howrey LLP 1950 University Ave 4th Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303 650−798−3500 Email: luj@howrey.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen L. Wilde , Disability Rights Oregon 620 SW Fifth Avenue Fifth Floor Portland, OR 97204−1428 503−243−2081 Fax: 503−243−1738 Email: kwilde@disabilityrightsoregon.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larisa M Cummings Disability Rights Education &Defense Fund, Inc. 3075 Adeline Street, Suite 210 Berkeley, CA 94703 (510) 644−2555 Fax: (510) 841−8645 Email: LCummings@dredf.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marilee Chan Wang HOWREY LLP 1950 University Avenue 4th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94303 650−798−3586 Fax: 650−798−3600 Email: wangm@howrey.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J. Crosby , IV Heller Ehrman White &McAuliffe LLP 333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104−2878 (415)772−6627 Fax: (415)772−6268 Email: pcrosby@hewm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruhi Kumar Howrey LLP 525 Market Street Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94105 415−848−4900 Fax: 415−848−4999 Email: kumarr@howrey.com TERMINATED: 04/22/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara E. Jenkins

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 4 of 53

Howrey LLP 1950 University Ave. East Palo Alto, CA 94303 650−798−3664 Fax: 650−798−3600 Email: jenkinss@howrey.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Silvia Yee Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc. 3075 Adeline Street Suite 210 Berkeley, CA 94703 510−644−2555 x234 Fax: 510−841−8645 Email: syee@dredf.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tammy Renee Cooper on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 03/04/2009

represented by Adil Haq (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Henry C. Su (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wondie Russell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ann Kathleen Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine Picard Rosen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denise Marieiro Cardoso (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Esta Lynne Brand (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald Andrew McIntyre (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob Nathaniel Foster

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 5 of 53

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeanne Finberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer C. Lu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen L. Wilde , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Larisa M Cummings (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilee Chan Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J. Crosby , IV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ruhi Kumar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/22/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara E. Jenkins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Silvia Yee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Scarlett Miles on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

represented by Adil Haq (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Henry C. Su (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wondie Russell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ann Kathleen Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 6 of 53
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine Picard Rosen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charlotte L. Lanvers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Marieiro Cardoso (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esta Lynne Brand (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald Andrew McIntyre (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob Nathaniel Foster (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne Finberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer C. Lu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen L. Wilde , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larisa M Cummings (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marilee Chan Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J. Crosby , IV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruhi Kumar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/22/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara E. Jenkins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Silvia Yee (See above for address)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 7 of 53

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Marvelena Quesada on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

represented by Adil Haq (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Henry C. Su (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wondie Russell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ann Kathleen Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine Picard Rosen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charlotte L. Lanvers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denise Marieiro Cardoso (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Esta Lynne Brand (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald Andrew McIntyre (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob Nathaniel Foster (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeanne Finberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer C. Lu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen L. Wilde ,

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 8 of 53

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Larisa M Cummings (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilee Chan Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J. Crosby , IV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ruhi Kumar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/22/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara E. Jenkins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Silvia Yee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Arlene Doherty on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

represented by Adil Haq (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Henry C. Su (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wondie Russell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ann Kathleen Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine Picard Rosen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charlotte L. Lanvers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denise Marieiro Cardoso (See above for address)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 9 of 53

TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Esta Lynne Brand (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald Andrew McIntyre (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob Nathaniel Foster (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeanne Finberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer C. Lu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen L. Wilde , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Larisa M Cummings (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilee Chan Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J. Crosby , IV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ruhi Kumar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/22/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara E. Jenkins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Silvia Yee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Alice Marjorie Donovan on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

represented by Adil Haq (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Henry C. Su (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 10 of 53
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wondie Russell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ann Kathleen Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine Picard Rosen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charlotte L. Lanvers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Marieiro Cardoso (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esta Lynne Brand (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald Andrew McIntyre (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob Nathaniel Foster (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne Finberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer C. Lu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen L. Wilde , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larisa M Cummings (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marilee Chan Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J. Crosby , IV (See above for address)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 11 of 53

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ruhi Kumar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/22/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara E. Jenkins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Silvia Yee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Billie Jean Keith on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

represented by Adil Haq (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Henry C. Su (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wondie Russell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ann Kathleen Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine Picard Rosen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charlotte L. Lanvers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denise Marieiro Cardoso (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Esta Lynne Brand (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald Andrew McIntyre (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob Nathaniel Foster

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 12 of 53

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeanne Finberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer C. Lu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen L. Wilde , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Larisa M Cummings (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilee Chan Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J. Crosby , IV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ruhi Kumar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/22/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara E. Jenkins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Silvia Yee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
George P. Smith on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated

represented by Adil Haq (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Henry C. Su (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wondie Russell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ann Kathleen Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 13 of 53
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine Picard Rosen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charlotte L. Lanvers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Marieiro Cardoso (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esta Lynne Brand (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald Andrew McIntyre (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob Nathaniel Foster (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne Finberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer C. Lu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen L. Wilde , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larisa M Cummings (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marilee Chan Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J. Crosby , IV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruhi Kumar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/22/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara E. Jenkins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Silvia Yee (See above for address)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 14 of 53

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Dorothy Jackson TERMINATED: 03/04/2009

represented by Adil Haq (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Henry C. Su (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wondie Russell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ann Kathleen Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Catherine Picard Rosen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denise Marieiro Cardoso (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Esta Lynne Brand (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald Andrew McIntyre (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacob Nathaniel Foster (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeanne Finberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer C. Lu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen L. Wilde , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Larisa M Cummings

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 15 of 53

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilee Chan Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J. Crosby , IV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ruhi Kumar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/22/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara E. Jenkins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Silvia Yee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mary Ann Alexander

represented by Henry C. Su (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ann Kathleen Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charlotte L. Lanvers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denise Marieiro Cardoso (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald Andrew McIntyre (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer C. Lu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen L. Wilde , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Larisa M Cummings (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilee Chan Wang

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 16 of 53

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ruhi Kumar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/22/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara E. Jenkins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Silvia Yee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wondie Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Laura M. Russell

represented by Henry C. Su (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ann Kathleen Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arlene Brynne Mayerson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charlotte L. Lanvers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denise Marieiro Cardoso (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald Andrew McIntyre (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer C. Lu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen L. Wilde , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Larisa M Cummings (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilee Chan Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ruhi Kumar

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 17 of 53
(See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/22/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara E. Jenkins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Silvia Yee (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wondie Russell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/20/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Jo Anne B. Barnhart Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, in her official capacity TERMINATED: 05/08/2008
Defendant Social Security Administration

represented by Marsha S. Edney Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Rm. 7148 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−4520 Email: marsha.edney@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tara Marie La Morte Department of Justice 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 202−514−1275 Fax: 202−616−8202 Email: tara.lamorte@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Scott Risner U.S. Department of Justice 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 202−514−2395 Fax: 202−616−8470 Email: scott.risner@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tara Marie La Morte (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Martin Riess U.S. Department of Justice 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530 202−353−3098 Fax: 202−616−8460

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 18 of 53

Email: Daniel.Riess@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marsha S. Edney Department of Justice 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Rm. 7148 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−4520 Email: marsha.edney@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Michael J. Astrue Commissioner, Social Security Administration

represented by Scott Risner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tara Marie La Morte Department of Justice Civil Division 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 202−514−1275 Fax: 202−616−8202 Email: tara.lamorte@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Martin Riess (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marsha S. Edney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/16/2005
11/16/2005 11/16/2005 11/21/2005
11/22/2005

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT; summons issued against Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Social Security Administration ( Filing fee $ 250; receipt number 3378466). Filed byScarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2005) Additional attachment(s) added on 12/13/2005 (slh, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/17/2005)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 2/14/2006. Case Management Conference set for 2/21/2006 02:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2005) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2005) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
3 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. Jo Anne B. Barnhart served on 11/17/2005, answer due 12/7/2005. (Answer due 90 days after service of the summons, i.e., 2/15/2006) (Rosen, Catherine) (Filed on 11/21/2005) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
Summons Issued as to Social Security Administration. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2005) (Entered: 11/23/2005)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 19 of 53

11/30/2005
01/27/2006
02/03/2006 02/07/2006 02/10/2006 02/13/2006 02/28/2006
03/03/2006 03/09/2006
03/23/2006
03/27/2006 03/29/2006 03/31/2006 04/04/2006

4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. Social Security Administration served on 11/23/2005, answer due 12/13/2005. (Answer due 90 days after service of the summons, i.e., 2/21/2006) (Rosen, Catherine) (Filed on 11/30/2005) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper re Service of Summons and Complaint on U.S. Attorney General (Rosen, Catherine) (Filed on 1/27/2006) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
6 MOTION of Kathleen L. Wilde for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (fee paid) filed by Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2006) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
7 CLERK'S NOTICE. Case Management Conference reset for 4/11/2006 02:00 PM. Joint Case Management Statement due by 4/3/2006. (mat, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2006) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
8 ORDER by Judge Martin J. Jenkins GRANTING 6 Motion for Pro Hac Vice admission of attorney Kathleen L. Wilde. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2006) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
9 NOTICE by Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper Proof of Service of Clerk's Notice re Case Management Conference (Rosen, Catherine) (Filed on 2/13/2006) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper Proof of Service of Order Granting Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice of Kathleen L. Wilde (Rosen, Catherine) (Filed on 2/28/2006) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
11 STIPULATION Requesting Order Rescheduling Case Management Conference (Joint) by Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Social Security Administration. (La Morte, Tara) (Filed on 3/3/2006) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
12 ORDER granting 11 Stipulation filed by Jo Anne B. Barnhart,, Social Security Administration, Case Management Conference reset for 4/18/2006 02:00 PM.. Joint Case Management Conference Statement fue 4/10/2006. Signed by Judge Martin J. Jenkins on 3/9/2006. (mat, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2006) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
13 AMENDED COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against all defendants. Filed byScarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5)(Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 3/23/2006) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
14 STIPULATION To Exceed Page Limitations by Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Social Security Administration. (La Morte, Tara) (Filed on 3/27/2006) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
15 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5b) of discussion of ADR options By Parties and Counsel (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 3/29/2006) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
16 ***DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR − PLEASE SEE #17*** ADR Clerks Notice re: Non−Compliance with Court Order. (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2006) Modified on 4/4/2006 (tjs, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/31/2006)
17 ADR Clerks Notice re: Non−Compliance with Court Order. (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2006) (Entered: 04/04/2006)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 20 of 53

04/05/2006 04/05/2006 04/05/2006 05/12/2006 05/15/2006
05/15/2006 05/23/2006 05/23/2006 05/23/2006 05/23/2006
05/23/2006
05/23/2006

18 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (subject matter FRCP 12(b)(1)) filed by Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Social Security Administration. Motion Hearing set for 6/13/2006 09:30 AM. (La Morte, Tara) (Filed on 4/5/2006) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
19 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted filed by Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Social Security Administration. Motion Hearing set for 6/13/2006 09:30 AM. (La Morte, Tara) (Filed on 4/5/2006) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
20 CLERK'S NOTICE. Case Management Conference reset for 7/18/2006 02:00 PM. Joint Case Management Statement due by 7/10/2006. (mat, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2006) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
21 STIPULATION To Reschedule Hearing Date and For Extension of Time for Defendants' Reply Briefs by Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Social Security Administration. (La Morte, Tara) (Filed on 5/12/2006) (Entered: 05/12/2006)
22 ORDER granting 21 Stipulation filed by Jo Anne B. Barnhart,, Social Security Administration,, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 21 Stipulation, 18 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (subject matter FRCP 12(b)(1)), 19 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted. Motions hearing reset for 7/18/2006 09:30 AM.. Signed by Judge Martin J. Jenkins on 5/15/2006. (mat, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2006) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Case Management Conference reset for 8/29/2006 02:00 PM. Joint Case Management Conference due 8/21/2006. (mat, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2006) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
23 Memorandum in Opposition re 19 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted filed byScarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Mayerson, Arlene) (Filed on 5/23/2006) (Entered: 05/23/2006)
24 Proposed Order re 23 Memorandum in Opposition, Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Mayerson, Arlene) (Filed on 5/23/2006) (Entered: 05/23/2006)
25 Memorandum in Opposition re 18 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (subject matter FRCP 12(b)(1)) filed byScarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 5/23/2006) (Entered: 05/23/2006)
26 Declaration of Larisa M. Cummings in Support of 25 Memorandum in Opposition, to 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jursidiction filed byScarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F)(Related document(s) 25 ) (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 5/23/2006) (Entered: 05/23/2006)
27 Declaration of Billie Jean Keith in Support of 25 Memorandum in Opposition, to 12(b)(1) Motion to Dimiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed byScarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J# 11 Exhibit K# 12 Exhibit L# 13 Exhibit M# 14 Exhibit N# 15 Exhibit O# 16 Exhibit P# 17 Exhibit Q# 18 Exhibit R# 19 Exhibit S# 20 Exhibit T# 21 Exhibit U)(Related document(s) 25 ) (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 5/23/2006) (Entered: 05/23/2006)
28 Declaration of Kathleen L. Wilde in Support of 25 Memorandum in Opposition, to 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed byScarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper.

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 21 of 53

05/23/2006
05/23/2006 06/01/2006 06/01/2006 06/01/2006 06/02/2006 06/06/2006
06/09/2006 06/09/2006 09/08/2006 09/08/2006 10/05/2006

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G)(Related document(s) 25 ) (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 5/23/2006) (Entered: 05/23/2006)
29 Request for Judicial Notice re 23 Memorandum in Opposition,, 25 Memorandum in Opposition, in Support of Motions to Dismiss filed byScarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J# 11 Exhibit K# 12 Exhibit L# 13 Exhibit M# 14 Exhibit N)(Related document(s) 23 , 25 ) (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 5/23/2006) (Entered: 05/23/2006)
30 Proposed Order re 25 Memorandum in Opposition, Denying Defendants' 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 5/23/2006) (Entered: 05/23/2006)
31 ORDER RE−SETTING HEARING DATE ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND RE−SETTING CMC. Signed by Judge Martin J. Jenkins on 6/1/2006. (mjjlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2006) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 18 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, 19 MOTION to Dismiss; Motion Hearing reset for 8/29/2006 09:30 AM. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2006) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
Set/Reset Hearings: Case Management Conference reset for 9/26/2006 02:00 PM. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2006) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
32 STIPULATION To Reschedule Hearing Date on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and To Grant Defendants Three−Day Extension to File Reply Briefs by Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Social Security Administration. (La Morte, Tara) (Filed on 6/2/2006) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
33 ORDER granting 32 Stipulation filed by Jo Anne B. Barnhart,, Social Security Administration,, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 32 Stipulation, 18 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (subject matter FRCP 12(b)(1)), 19 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted. Replies due by 6/9/2006. Motion Hearing reset for 9/12/2006 09:30 AM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Martin J. Jenkins on 6/6/2006. (matS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2006) (Entered: 06/06/2006)
34 Reply Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed byJo Anne B. Barnhart, Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Defs.' Reply Mem. In Support of Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction)(La Morte, Tara) (Filed on 6/9/2006) (Entered: 06/09/2006)
35 Reply Memorandum In Support of Defs.' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss filed byJo Anne B. Barnhart, Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defs.' Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit Defs.' Exhibit 2)(La Morte, Tara) (Filed on 6/9/2006) (Entered: 06/09/2006)
36 CLERK'S NOTICE. Case Management Conference reset for 11/28/2006 02:00 PM. Joint Case Management Statement due by 11/20/2006. (mat, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2006) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
37 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Defendant's Motions to Dismiss Hearing. Motion Hearing reset for 10/31/2006 09:30 AM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (mat, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2006) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
38 STIPULATION : Joint Stipulation Requesting Rescheduling of Hearing Date on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss by Scarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Mayerson, Arlene) (Filed on 10/5/2006) (Entered: 10/05/2006)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 22 of 53

10/10/2006
10/11/2006 01/05/2007 01/16/2007 01/17/2007
01/23/2007 02/26/2007
02/28/2007
02/28/2007 04/30/2007 05/14/2007 06/14/2007 07/23/2007
08/02/2007

39 ORDER Re−Setting Hearing Date of Defendants' 18 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (subject matter FRCP 12(b)(1)), 19 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted. Motion Hearing reset for 2/6/2007 09:30 AM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Martin J. Jenkins on 10/10/2006. (mat, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2006) (Entered: 10/11/2006)
40 CLERK'S NOTICE. Case Management Conference reset for 3/13/2007 02:00 PM. Joint Case Management Statement due by 3/5/2007. (mat, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2006) (Entered: 10/11/2006)
41 STIPULATION REQUESTING RESCHEDULING OF HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS by American Council of the Blind. (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 1/5/2007) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
42 MOTION to Withdraw Defendants' Motions To Dismiss Without Prejudice To Refiling filed by Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Social Security Administration. (La Morte, Tara) (Filed on 1/16/2007) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
43 Statement of Non−Opposition re 42 MOTION to Withdraw Defendants' Motions To Dismiss Without Prejudice To Refiling filed byScarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Related document(s) 42 ) (Rosen, Catherine) (Filed on 1/17/2007) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
44 NOTICE by Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Social Security Administration Of Withdrawal Of Motions (La Morte, Tara) (Filed on 1/23/2007) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
45 STIPULATION and Proposed Order Continuing Case Management Conference Presently Scheduled for March 13, 2007 and Setting a Status Conference for May 15, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. by Scarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Wondie Russell in Support)(Rosen, Catherine) (Filed on 2/26/2007) (Entered: 02/26/2007)
46 ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 13, 2007 AND SETTING A STATUS CONFERENCE FOR MAY 15, 2007 AT 2:00 P.M. Signed by Judge Martin J. Jenkins on 2/27/2007. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2007) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 5/15/2007 02:00 P.M. in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Martin J. Jenkins. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2007) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
47 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by Scarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 4/30/2007) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
48 ORDER re 47 Status Report. Status Conference of 5/15/07 vacated and reset for 8/7/2007 02:00 PM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Joint Status Statement due 10 days prior to conference. Signed by Judge Martin J. Jenkins on 5/14/07. (epb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2007) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
49 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Jeanne Finberg (Finberg, Jeanne) (Filed on 6/14/2007) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
50 STATUS REPORT (FILED JOINTLY) by Michael Astrue, Scarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Social Security Administration, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 7/23/2007) (Entered: 07/23/2007)
51 ORDER re 50 Status Report Status Conference of 8/7/07 VACATED and reset for 2/5/2008 02:00 PM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Joint Status Report due 1/29/08. Signed by Judge Martin J. Jenkins on 8/2/07. (epb, COURT

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 23 of 53

01/29/2008 01/31/2008 02/15/2008 02/20/2008 02/20/2008 02/26/2008 02/28/2008
02/29/2008
02/29/2008 03/03/2008 03/06/2008 03/06/2008 03/17/2008 03/20/2008

STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2007) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
52 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report by Michael Astrue, Social Security Administration. (La Morte, Tara) (Filed on 1/29/2008) (Entered: 01/29/2008)
53 CLERK'S NOTICE VACATING Status Conference. (mat, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2008) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
54 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Hon. William H. Alsup for all further proceedings. Judge Hon. Martin J. Jenkins no longer assigned to case. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2008) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
55 CLERK'S NOTICE Scheduling CMC on Reassignment. Case Management Conference set for 2/28/2008 10:00 AM. Case Management Statement due by 2/26/2008. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2008) Modified on 2/20/2008 (dt, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/20/2008)
56 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER TO ORDER SETTING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE re 55 Clerk's Notice. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 1/7/08. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2008) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
57 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Michael Astrue, Social Security Administration. (La Morte, Tara) (Filed on 2/26/2008) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
58 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 2/28/2008 before William Alsup (Date Filed: 2/28/2008), CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Chen for Mediation/Settlement Conference. Pretrial Conference set for 3/30/2009 02:00 PM. Motion to Dismiss Hearing set for 4/10/2008 08:00 AM. Bench Trial set for 4/13/2009 07:30 AM. (Court Reporter Joan Columbini.) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/28/2008) (Entered: 02/28/2008)
59 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen for Mediation/Settlement. Pretrial Conference set for 3/30/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Motions due by 2/5/2009. Discovery due by 12/31/2008. Bench Trial set for 4/13/2009 07:30 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 2/28/2008. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/29/2008) (Entered: 02/29/2008)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen for Settlement (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/29/2008) (Entered: 02/29/2008)
60 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Peter J. Crosby, IV (Crosby, Peter) (Filed on 3/3/2008) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
61 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Michael Astrue, Social Security Administration. Motion Hearing set for 4/10/2008 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (La Morte, Tara) (Filed on 3/6/2008) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
62 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim filed by Michael Astrue, Social Security Administration. Motion Hearing set for 4/10/2008 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (La Morte, Tara) (Filed on 3/6/2008) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
63 ORDER − Notice of Settlement Conference and Settlement Conference Order. Settlement Conference set for 9/16/2008 09:30 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/17/2008. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2008) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
64 Memorandum in Opposition 62 to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed byScarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 3/20/2008) Modified on 3/21/2008 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/20/2008)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 24 of 53

03/20/2008 03/20/2008
03/20/2008
03/20/2008 03/20/2008 03/27/2008 03/27/2008 04/07/2008 04/07/2008 04/07/2008 04/07/2008

65 Memorandum in Opposition 61 to Defendants' 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed byScarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 3/20/2008) Modified on 3/21/2008 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/20/2008)
66 Request for Judicial Notice re 64 Memorandum in Opposition, 65 Memorandum in Opposition, filed byScarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P)(Related document(s) 64 , 65 ) (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 3/20/2008) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
67 Declaration of Kathleen L. Wilde in Support of 64 Memorandum in Opposition, to Defendants' 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed byScarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Related document(s) 64 ) (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 3/20/2008) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
68 Proposed Order re 65 Memorandum in Opposition, to Defendants' 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Scarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 3/20/2008) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
69 Proposed Order re 64 Memorandum in Opposition, to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by Scarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 3/20/2008) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
70 Reply Memorandum re 61 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed byMichael Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(La Morte, Tara) (Filed on 3/27/2008) (Entered: 03/27/2008)
71 Reply Memorandum re 62 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim filed byMichael Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(La Morte, Tara) (Filed on 3/27/2008) (Entered: 03/27/2008)
72 NOTICE of Appearance by Wondie Russell Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs American Council of The Blind Et Al. (Esta L. Brand, Jacob Foster) (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 4/7/2008) (Entered: 04/07/2008)
73 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Evidentiary Objections and Motion to Strike or, In the Alternative, For Leave to File a Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' New Reply Evidence filed by American Council of the Blind. Motion Hearing set for 4/10/2008 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A)(Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 4/7/2008) (Entered: 04/07/2008)
74 Proposed Order re 73 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Evidentiary Objections and Motion to Strike or, In the Alternative, For Leave to File a Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' New Reply Evidence Submitted in Support of Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Based on Federal Rule 12(B)(6) and for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by American Council of the Blind. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A)(Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 4/7/2008) (Entered: 04/07/2008)
75 Proposed Order re 73 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Evidentiary Objections and Motion to Strike or, In the Alternative, For Leave to File a Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' New Reply Evidence Granting Leave to File Memorandum in Opposition to the New Reply Evidence Submitted in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Based on Federal Rule 12(B)(6) and for lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by American Council of the Blind. (Russell, Wondie)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 25 of 53

04/08/2008 04/10/2008
04/23/2008 05/02/2008 05/07/2008 05/07/2008 05/07/2008 05/13/2008 05/13/2008 06/12/2008
06/12/2008 06/12/2008

(Filed on 4/7/2008) (Entered: 04/07/2008)
76 Memorandum in Opposition re 73 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Evidentiary Objections and Motion to Strike or, In the Alternative, For Leave to File a Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' New Reply Evidence filed byMichael Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(La Morte, Tara) (Filed on 4/8/2008) (Entered: 04/08/2008)
77 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 4/10/2008 before William Alsup (Date Filed: 4/10/2008) re 62 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Social Security Administration, Michael Astrue, 73 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Evidentiary Objections and Motion to Strike or, In the Alternative, For Leave to File a Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' New Reply Evidence filed by American Council of the Blind, 61 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Social Security Administration, Michael Astrue. (Court Reporter Joan Columbini.) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/10/2008) (Entered: 04/10/2008)
78 ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS IN PART AND (2) REQUESTING FURTHER BRIFING by Judge William Alsup [denying 61 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting in part and denying in part 62 Motion to Dismiss]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2008) (Entered: 04/23/2008)
79 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 04/10/08 before Judge William Alsup. Court Reporter Joan Columbini. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2008) (Entered: 05/05/2008)
80 Brief (Memorandum) re Options for Proceeding Following April 23, 2008 Order Denying Motions to Dismiss filed byScarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 5/7/2008) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
81 Brief Regarding How Litigation Should Proceed filed byMichael Astrue, Social Security Administration. (La Morte, Tara) (Filed on 5/7/2008) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
82 Defendants' ANSWER to Amended Complaint byMichael Astrue, Social Security Administration. (La Morte, Tara) (Filed on 5/7/2008) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
83 ORDER DENYING RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS [re 62 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim filed by Social Security Administration]. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 5/13/2008. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2008) (Entered: 05/13/2008)
84 ORDER RE PROPER COURSE OF FUTURE PROCEEDINGS ]re 78 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction]. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 5/13/2008. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2008) (Entered: 05/13/2008)
85 MOTION to Amend/Correct Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint Adding Two New Plaintiffs filed by Scarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. Motion Hearing set for 7/18/2008 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 6/12/2008) (Entered: 06/12/2008)
86 Proposed Order 85 Granting Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by Scarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 6/12/2008) Modified on 6/13/2008 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/12/2008)
87 Declaration of Wondie Russell 85 In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint Adding Two New Plaintiffs filed byScarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Wondie Russell in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave to File Second Amended Complaint Adding Two

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 26 of 53

06/13/2008 06/16/2008 06/16/2008 06/16/2008 06/16/2008 06/18/2008
06/30/2008 07/01/2008 07/17/2008 07/24/2008
07/24/2008
07/24/2008

New Plaintiffs, # 2 Exhibit 2 to Wondie Russell Declaration in Support of Motion to File 2nd Amended Complaint, # 3 Exhibit 3 to Wondie Russell Declaration in Support of Motion to File 2nd Amended Complaint, # 4 Exhibit 4 to Wondie Russell Declaration in Support of Motion to File 2nd Amended Complaint)(Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 6/12/2008) Modified on 6/13/2008 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/12/2008)
88 NOTICE of Appearance by Wondie Russell Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 6/13/2008) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
89 ORDER by Judge Alsup granting 85 Motion to Amend/Correct ; (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2008) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
90 STIPULATION re 63 Order, Set Hearings Requesting Rescheduling of Settlement Conference by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (La Morte, Tara) (Filed on 6/16/2008) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
91 NOTICE of Appearance by Scott Risner for Defendants (Risner, Scott) (Filed on 6/16/2008) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
92 ORDER − Joint Stipulation 90 Requesting Rescheduling of Settlement Conference and Order. Settlement Conference set for 9/16/2008 09:30 AM has been changed to 8/14/2008 09:30 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/16/2008. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2008) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
93 AMENDED COMPLAINT Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. Filed byMary Ann Alexander, Laura M. Russell, Scarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, # 2 Exhibit 2 to Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, # 3 Exhibit 3 to Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, # 4 Exhibit 4 to Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, # 5 Exhibit 5 to Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief)(Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 6/18/2008) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
94 STIPULATION Extending Deadline to Respond to Second Amended Complaint by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Risner, Scott) (Filed on 6/30/2008) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
95 STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Alsup on July 1, 2008. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2008) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
96 ANSWER to Amended Complaint 93 (Second) byMichael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (La Morte, Tara) (Filed on 7/17/2008) Modified on 7/18/2008 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/17/2008)
97 MOTION to Certify Class : PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; MEMO. OF POINTS &AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT filed by American Council of the Blind. Motion Hearing set for 9/4/2008 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Mayerson, Arlene) (Filed on 7/24/2008) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
98 Declaration of MAYERSON, Arlene B. in Support of 97 MOTION to Certify Class : PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; MEMO. OF POINTS &AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT : MAYERSON DECL. ISO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION, with EXHIBIT filed byAmerican Council of the Blind. (Related document(s) 97 ) (Mayerson, Arlene) (Filed on 7/24/2008) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
99 Declaration of RUSSELL, Wondie in Support of 97 MOTION to Certify Class : PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; MEMO. OF POINTS &AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT : RUSSELL DECL. ISO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION filed byAmerican Council of the Blind. (Related document(s) 97 ) (Mayerson, Arlene) (Filed on 7/24/2008) (Entered: 07/24/2008)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 27 of 53

07/24/2008
07/24/2008
07/24/2008
07/25/2008 07/28/2008 08/01/2008 08/13/2008
08/15/2008 08/15/2008 08/18/2008 08/19/2008 08/20/2008 08/21/2008
08/21/2008

100 Declaration of McINTYRE, Gerald A. in Support of 97 MOTION to Certify Class : PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; MEMO. OF POINTS &AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT : McINTYRE DECL. ISO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION filed byAmerican Council of the Blind. (Related document(s) 97 ) (Mayerson, Arlene) (Filed on 7/24/2008) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
101 Proposed Order re 97 MOTION to Certify Class : PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; MEMO. OF POINTS &AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT : PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by American Council of the Blind. (Mayerson, Arlene) (Filed on 7/24/2008) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
102 Request for Judicial Notice re 97 MOTION to Certify Class : PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; MEMO. OF POINTS &AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT : PLS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE RE PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION, with EXHIBITS A THRU R filed byAmerican Council of the Blind. (Related document(s) 97 ) (Mayerson, Arlene) (Filed on 7/24/2008) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
103 NOTICE of Appearance by Marsha S. Edney (Edney, Marsha) (Filed on 7/25/2008) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
104 STIPULATION TO PROTECTIVE ORDER by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Risner, Scott) (Filed on 7/28/2008) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
105 ORDER APPROVING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER SUBJECT TO STATED CONDITIONS. Signed by Judge Alsup on August 1, 2008. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2008) (Entered: 08/01/2008)
106 Memorandum in Opposition re 97 MOTION to Certify Class : PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; MEMO. OF POINTS &AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT filed byMichael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Risner, Scott) (Filed on 8/13/2008) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
107 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference held 8/14/2008. Case did not settle. Further Settlement Conference scheduled for 9/4/2008 12:00 Noon; Court to issue Scheduling Order. (Date Filed: 8/15/2008). (Court Reporter: Not Recorded.). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/15/2008) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
108 ORDER − Notice and Order Setting Further Settlement Conference. Further Settlement Conference set for 9/4/2008 12:00 Noon. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/15/2008. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2008) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
109 NOTICE by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration (Requesting Oral Argument on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification) (Risner, Scott) (Filed on 8/18/2008) (Entered: 08/18/2008)
110 CLERK'S NOTICE − Further Settlement Conference set for 9/4/2008 12:00 Noon has been changed to 9/4/2008 01:00 PM. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2008) (Entered: 08/19/2008)
111 MOTION to Appear by Telephone For Settlement Conference (Unopposed) filed by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(La Morte, Tara) (Filed on 8/20/2008) (Entered: 08/20/2008)
112 Reply Memorandum 97 in Support of Motion for Class Certification filed by Scarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Mary Ann Alexander, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Yee, Silvia) (Filed on 8/21/2008) Modified on 8/22/2008 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/21/2008)
113 Request for Judicial Notice re 112 Reply Memorandum, in Support of Motion for Class Certification filed byScarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 28 of 53

08/22/2008 08/28/2008 08/28/2008
08/28/2008 08/29/2008 08/29/2008 08/29/2008 08/29/2008 08/29/2008 09/09/2008 09/10/2008 09/11/2008 09/11/2008 09/11/2008 10/01/2008

Jean Keith, Mary Ann Alexander, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Related document(s) 112 ) (Yee, Silvia) (Filed on 8/21/2008) (Entered: 08/21/2008)
114 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 111 Defendants' Motion for Party Representative to Participate Telephonically at Settlement Conference. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2008) (Entered: 08/22/2008)
115 NOTICE by American Council of the Blind Notice of Errata and Notice of Filing Re Plaintiffs' Corrected Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Class Certification (Yee, Silvia) (Filed on 8/28/2008) (Entered: 08/28/2008)
116 *** INCORRECT FILING − SEE DOC. #117 *** NOTICE by American Council of the Blind re 115 Notice (Other) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to Notice of Errata and Notice of Filing Re Plaintiffs' Corrected Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Class Certification)(Yee, Silvia) (Filed on 8/28/2008) Modified on 8/29/2008 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/28/2008)
117 NOTICE by American Council of the Blind re 116 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 115 Notice (Other) (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Class Certification)(Yee, Silvia) (Filed on 8/28/2008) (Entered: 08/28/2008)
118 CLERK'S NOTICE Rescheduling Motion Hearing. Motion Hearing set for 9/10/2008 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2008) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
119 MOTION for Settlement Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Certain Plaintiffs to be Excused from Attending Settlement Conference filed by American Council of the Blind. (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 8/29/2008) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
120 Consent MOTION to Continue Settlement Conference on September 4, 2008 filed by Michael J. Astrue. Motion Hearing set for 9/4/2008 01:00 PM. (Edney, Marsha) (Filed on 8/29/2008) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
121 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen Continuing Further Settlement Conference 120 and Excusing Attendance at Further Settlement Conference 119 . (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2008) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
Set/Reset Hearings: Settlement Conference set for 9/11/2008 09:00 AM. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2008) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
122 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Wondie Russell (Esta L. Brand no longer acting as counsel for Plaintiffs) (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 9/9/2008) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
123 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 9/10/2008 before William Alsup (Date Filed: 9/10/2008) re 97 MOTION to Certify Class filed by American Council of the Blind. (Court Reporter Kathy Wyatt.) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/10/2008) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
124 Minute Entry: Further Settlement Conference held 9/11/2008. Case did not settle. Further Settlement Conference scheduled for 11/10/2008 10:00 AM; Court to issue Scheduling Order. (Date Filed: 9/11/2008). (Court Reporter: Not Recorded.). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/11/2008) (Entered: 09/11/2008)
125 ORDER − Notice and Order Setting Furhter Settlement Conference. Further Settlement Conference set for 11/10/2008 10:00 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 9/11/2008. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2008) (Entered: 09/11/2008)
126 ORDER by Judge Alsup granting in part and denying in part 97 Motion to Certify Class (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2008) (Entered: 09/11/2008)
127 NOTICE of Appearance by Wondie Russell of Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs American Council of the Blind, et al. (Denise Cardoso) (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 10/1/2008) (Entered: 10/01/2008)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 29 of 53

10/01/2008 10/01/2008 10/01/2008
10/01/2008
10/03/2008 10/15/2008 10/16/2008 11/19/2008 11/19/2008 11/19/2008 11/19/2008
11/19/2008
11/19/2008

128 Proposed Order : STIPULATION &[PROPOSED] ORDER RE NOTICE OF CLASS CERTIFICATION by Scarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Mary Ann Alexander, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Yee, Silvia) (Filed on 10/1/2008) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
129 EXHIBIT A− NOTICE OF CLASS CERTIFICATION re: 128 by Scarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Mary Ann Alexander, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Yee, Silvia) (Filed on 10/1/2008) Modified on 10/2/2008 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/2008)
130 EXHIBIT B− LIST OF PLAINTIFFS CONTACT ORGANIZATIONS re: 128 by Scarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Mary Ann Alexander, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Yee, Silvia) (Filed on 10/1/2008) Modified on 10/2/2008 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/01/2008)
131 Declaration of Denise Cardoso in Support of 128 Proposed Order, Stipulation re Notice of Class Certification filed byScarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Mary Ann Alexander, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Related document(s) 128 ) (Cardoso, Denise) (Filed on 10/1/2008) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
132 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE NOTICE OF CLASS DEFINITION. Signed by Judge Alsup on October 3, 2008. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2008) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
133 Letter from Marsha S. Edney on behalf of parties to cancel settlement conference. (Edney, Marsha) (Filed on 10/15/2008) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
134 ORDER Vacating Settlement Conference 133 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 10/16/2008. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2008) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
135 NOTICE of Appearance by Henry C. Su As Counsel for Plaintiffs and Request for Service of Papers (Su, Henry) (Filed on 11/19/2008) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
136 NOTICE of Appearance by Marilee Chan Wang As Counsel for Plaintiffs and Request for Service of Papers (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 11/19/2008) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
137 NOTICE of Appearance by Sara E. Jenkins As Counsel for Plaintiffs and Request for Service of Papers (Jenkins, Sara) (Filed on 11/19/2008) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
138 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Notice of Joint Motion and Joint Motion to Extend Dates in Case Management Order and to Continue Trial; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Scarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Mary Ann Alexander, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. Motion Hearing set for 12/4/2008 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Su, Henry) (Filed on 11/19/2008) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
139 Declaration of Henry C. Su in Support of 138 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Notice of Joint Motion and Joint Motion to Extend Dates in Case Management Order and to Continue Trial; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byScarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Mary Ann Alexander, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Related document(s) 138 ) (Su, Henry) (Filed on 11/19/2008) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
140 Declaration of Arlene B. Mayerson in Support of 138 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Notice of Joint Motion and Joint

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 30 of 53

11/19/2008 11/20/2008 11/20/2008 11/20/2008 11/26/2008
12/02/2008 12/02/2008 12/04/2008
12/12/2008 12/12/2008 12/19/2008

Motion to Extend Dates in Case Management Order and to Continue Trial; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byScarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Mary Ann Alexander, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Related document(s) 138 ) (Su, Henry) (Filed on 11/19/2008) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
141 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Wondie Russell Stipulation Concerning Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel for Plaintiffs and [Proposed] Order Approving Same (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 11/19/2008) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
142 ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION CONCERNING WITHDRAWAL AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS. Signed by Judge Alsup on November 20, 2008. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2008) (Entered: 11/20/2008)
143 NOTICE of Appearance by Ann Kathleen Miller As Counsel for Plaintiffs and Request for Service of Papers (Miller, Ann) (Filed on 11/20/2008) (Entered: 11/20/2008)
144 NOTICE of Appearance by Ruhi Kumar As Counsel for Plaintiffs and Request for Service of Papers (Kumar, Ruhi) (Filed on 11/20/2008) (Entered: 11/20/2008)
145 STIPULATION re 138 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Notice of Joint Motion and Joint Motion to Extend Dates in Case Management Order and to Continue Trial; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Stipulation Under Civ. L.R. 6−2 and [Proposed] Order Shortening Time Under Civ. L.R. 7−2(a) For Motion 138 To Be Noticed and Heard) by Scarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Michael J. Astrue, Billie Jean Keith, Mary Ann Alexander, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith, Social Security Administration, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Su, Henry) (Filed on 11/26/2008) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
146 STIPULATION AND ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DATES IN CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER TO DECEMBER 4, 2008, AT 3:30 P.M. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 12/2/2008. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2008) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 138 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Notice of Joint Motion and Joint Motion to Extend Dates in Case Management Order and to Continue Trial; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof. Motion Hearing set for 12/4/2008 03:30 PM. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2008) (Entered: 12/03/2008)
147 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 12/4/2008 before William Alsup (Date Filed: 12/8/2008) re 138 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Billie Jean Keith, Laura M. Russell, Tammy Renee Cooper, Mary Ann Alexander, Dorothy Jackson, George P. Smith, Scarlett Miles, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, American Council of the Blind, Marvelena Quesada. Bench Trial set for 9/8/2009 07:30 AM. (Court Reporter Lydia Zinn.) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/8/2008) . (Entered: 12/08/2008)
148 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DATES IN CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER AND CONTINUE TRIAL; REVISED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER by Judge Alsup granting 138 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2008) (Entered: 12/12/2008)
Set/Reset Hearings: Bench Trial set for 9/8/2009 07:30 AM. Final Pretrial Conference set for 8/24/2009 02:00 PM. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2008) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
149 RESPONSE to Court's Request for Deposition Schedule by Scarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Michael J. Astrue, Billie Jean Keith, Mary Ann Alexander, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith, Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Social

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 31 of 53

01/21/2009 01/23/2009
01/23/2009 02/18/2009
02/23/2009 03/02/2009 03/02/2009 03/03/2009 03/04/2009 03/05/2009 03/13/2009 03/26/2009
03/27/2009 04/07/2009

Security Administration, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Su, Henry) (Filed on 12/19/2008) (Entered: 12/19/2008)
150 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Summary Judgment Briefs to align schedule with Court's hearing calendar filed by Social Security Administration. Motion Hearing set for 2/26/2009 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Edney, Marsha) (Filed on 1/21/2009) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
151 ***FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 152 ***
ORDER by Judge Alsup granting 150 Motion to Align Briefing Schedule. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2009) Modified on 1/23/2009 (whalc1, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/23/2009)
152 CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 151. ORDER granting 150 Motion to Align Briefing Schedule. Signed by Judge Alsup on January 23, 2009. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2009) (Entered: 01/23/2009)
153 Proposed Order to Remove Tammy Renee Cooper and Dorothy Jackson as Named Plaintiffs and Class Representatives by Scarlett Miles, Dorothy Jackson, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Mary Ann Alexander, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith, Tammy Renee Cooper. (Miller, Ann) (Filed on 2/18/2009) (Entered: 02/18/2009)
154 ORDER RE STIPULATION TO WITHDRAW TAMMY RENEE COOPER AND DOROTHY JACKSON AS NAMED PLAINTIFFS AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVES. Signed by Judge Alsup on February 23, 2009. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2009) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
155 AFFIDAVIT re 154 Order (Declaration in Support of Withdrawal Submitted in Response to Court Order) by Tammy Renee Cooper. (Su, Henry) (Filed on 3/2/2009) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
156 AFFIDAVIT re 154 Order (Declaration of Jennifer Lu Re Status of Declaration from Dorothy Jackson in Support of Withdrawal) by Dorothy Jackson. (Su, Henry) (Filed on 3/2/2009) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
157 AFFIDAVIT re 154 Order Declaration in Support of Withdrawal Submitted in Response to Court Order by Dorothy Jackson. (Su, Henry) (Filed on 3/3/2009) (Entered: 03/03/2009)
158 STIPULATION TO WITHDRAW PLAINTIFFS TAMMY RENEE COOPER AND DOROTHY JACKSON AS NAMED PLAINTIFFS AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVES AND ORDER. Signed by Judge Alsup on March 4, 2009. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2009) (Entered: 03/04/2009)
159 NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer Chia−Ying Lu As Counsel for Plaintiffs and Request for Services of Papers (Lu, Jennifer) (Filed on 3/5/2009) (Entered: 03/05/2009)
160 NOTICE of Appearance by Charlotte L. Lanvers AS ADDITIONAL COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS, AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, ET AL. (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 3/13/2009) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
161 STIPULATION TO AMEND THE FACT DISCOVERY CUT−OFF DATE UNDER THE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER by Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Arlene Doherty, American Council of the Blind, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Michael J. Astrue, Billie Jean Keith, Mary Ann Alexander, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith, Social Security Administration. (Risner, Scott) (Filed on 3/26/2009) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
162 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO AMEND THE FACT DISCOVERY CUT−OFF DATE. Signed by Judge Alsup on March 27, 2009. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2009) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
163 Letter from Plaintiffs Regarding Order to Compel Discovery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 4/7/2009) (Entered:

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 32 of 53

04/08/2009
04/10/2009 04/10/2009 04/22/2009 06/11/2009
06/12/2009 06/15/2009 06/18/2009
06/18/2009 06/18/2009
06/18/2009

04/07/2009)
164 ORDER SETTING HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY DISPUTE [re 163 Letter filed by Billie Jean Keith, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith, Mary Ann Alexander, Scarlett Miles, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, American Council of the Blind, Marvelena Quesada]. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 4/8/2009. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2009) (Entered: 04/08/2009)
165 Letter from Defendants in Response to Plaintiffs' Letter of April 7, 2009. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Risner, Scott) (Filed on 4/10/2009) (Entered: 04/10/2009)
166 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel Martin Riess as Additional Counsel for Defendants (Riess, Daniel) (Filed on 4/10/2009) (Entered: 04/10/2009)
167 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Ruhi Kumar (Kumar, Ruhi) (Filed on 4/22/2009) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
168 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION FOR DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Michael J. Astrue, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith, Social Security Administration. (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 6/11/2009) (Entered: 06/11/2009)
169 REMINDER NOTICE OF UPCOMING TRIAL (9/8/2009) AND FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE (8/24/2009 AT 2:00 PM). Signed by Judge William Alsup on 6/12/2009. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2009) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
170 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION FOR DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Alsup on June 15, 2009. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2009) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
171 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Proffered Expert Testimony of Aries Arditi filed by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. Motion Hearing set for 7/23/2009 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Riess Declaration, # 3 Exhibit PX0002, # 4 Exhibit PX0042, # 5 Exhibit DX2002, # 6 Exhibit DX2004, # 7 Exhibit DX2005, # 8 Exhibit DX2012, # 9 Exhibit DX2013, # 10 Exhibit DX2014)(Riess, Daniel) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
172 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. Motion Hearing set for 7/23/2009 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit DX2016, # 3 Exhibit DX2017, # 4 Exhibit DX2018, # 5 Exhibit DX2028, # 6 Exhibit DX2030)(Edney, Marsha) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
173 Declaration of Scott Risner in Support of 172 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed byMichael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit PX0002, # 2 Exhibit PX0014, # 3 Exhibit PX0042, # 4 Exhibit PX0043, # 5 Exhibit PX0055, # 6 Exhibit PX0061, # 7 Exhibit PX0065, # 8 Exhibit PX0076, # 9 Exhibit PX0100, # 10 Exhibit DX2015, # 11 Exhibit DX2019, # 12 Exhibit DX2020, # 13 Exhibit DX2021, # 14 Exhibit DX2022, # 15 Exhibit DX2023, # 16 Exhibit DX2024, # 17 Exhibit DX2025, # 18 Exhibit DX2026, # 19 Exhibit DX2027, # 20 Exhibit DX2029)(Related document(s) 172 ) (Edney, Marsha) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
174 MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support filed by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. Motion Hearing set for 7/30/2009 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 33 of 53

06/18/2009 06/18/2009 06/18/2009 06/18/2009 06/18/2009 06/18/2009 06/18/2009 06/18/2009 06/18/2009

175 Declaration of Marilee C. Wang re 174 MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 174 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 6/18/2009) Modified on 6/19/2009 (wv, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/18/2009)
176 EXHIBITS re 175 Exhibits, Declaraton of Marilee C. Wang In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit E, # 2 Exhibit F, # 3 Exhibit G)(Related document(s) 175 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
177 EXHIBITS re 175 Exhibits, Declaration of Marilee C. Wang In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit I, # 2 Exhibit J, # 3 Exhibit K, # 4 Exhibit L)(Related document(s) 175 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
178 EXHIBITS re 175 Exhibits, Declaration of Marilee C. Wang In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit N, *** # 2 Exhibit O FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 196 . *** , # 3 Exhibit P, # 4 Exhibit Q)(Related document(s) 175 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 6/18/2009) Modified on 7/9/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/18/2009)
179 EXHIBITS re 175 Exhibits, Declaration of Marilee C. Wang In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit S, # 2 Exhibit T, # 3 Exhibit U, # 4 Exhibit V, # 5 Exhibit W)(Related document(s) 175 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
180 EXHIBITS re 175 Exhibits, Declaration of Marilee C. Wang In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Y, # 2 Exhibit Z, # 3 Exhibit AA, # 4 Exhibit BB)(Related document(s) 175 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
181 EXHIBITS re 175 Exhibits, Declaration of Marilee C. Wang In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit DD, # 2 Exhibit EE, # 3 Exhibit FF, # 4 Exhibit GG)(Related document(s) 175 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
182 EXHIBITS re 175 Exhibits, Declaration of Marilee C. Wang In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit II)(Related document(s) 175 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
183 EXHIBITS re 175 Exhibits, Declaration of Marilee C. Wang In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Related

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 34 of 53

06/18/2009 06/18/2009 06/18/2009 06/18/2009 06/18/2009 06/18/2009 06/18/2009 06/24/2009 06/25/2009
06/26/2009

document(s) 175 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
184 EXHIBITS re 175 Exhibits, Declaration of Marilee C. Wang In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Related document(s) 175 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
185 EXHIBITS re 175 Exhibits, Declaration of Marilee C. Wang In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Related document(s) 175 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
186 EXHIBITS re 175 Exhibits, Declaration of Marilee C. Wang In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit KK, # 2 Exhibit LL)(Related document(s) 175 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
187 EXHIBITS re 175 Exhibits, Declaration of Marilee C. Wang In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit NN)(Related document(s) 175 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
188 EXHIBITS re 175 Exhibits, Declaration of Marilee C. Wang In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit PP)(Related document(s) 175 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
189 EXHIBITS re 175 Exhibits, Declaration of Marilee C. Wang In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit RR)(Related document(s) 175 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
190 EXHIBITS re 175 Exhibits, Declaration of Marilee C. Wang In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit TT, # 2 Exhibit UU, # 3 Exhibit VV, # 4 Exhibit WW, # 5 Exhibit XX)(Related document(s) 175 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 6/18/2009) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
191 STIPULATION and Proposed Order regarding Filing Deadlines and Hearing Date by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Edney, Marsha) (Filed on 6/24/2009) (Entered: 06/24/2009)
192 MOTION for Leave to File "Motion to Exclude the Proffered Expert Testimony of Aries Arditi" in Form Attached, to Have That Motion Deemed Filed as of June 25, 2009, and to Have Ordinary Motion Briefing Deadlines Applied to That Motion filed by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. Motion Hearing set for 7/30/2009 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Motion to Exclude the Proffered Testimony of Aries Arditi, # 3 Riess Declaration, # 4 Exhibit DX2002, # 5 Exhibit DX2004, # 6 Exhibit DX2005, # 7 Exhibit DX2012, # 8 Exhibit DX2013, # 9 Exhibit DX2014)(Riess, Daniel) (Filed on 6/25/2009) (Entered: 06/25/2009)
193 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE FILING DEADLINES AND HEARING DATE FOR DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Alsup on June 24, 2009. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2009) (Entered: 06/26/2009)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 35 of 53

06/26/2009 06/29/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009
07/07/2009
07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009

194 STATUS REPORT JOINT REPORT REGARDING ADR EFFORTS by American Council of the Blind, Michael J. Astrue, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith, Social Security Administration. (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 6/26/2009) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
195 ORDER by Judge Alsup granting 192 Motion for Leave to File Motion to Exclude (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2009) (Entered: 06/29/2009)
196 EXHIBITS re 175 Exhibits,, Corrected Exhibit O filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Related document(s) 175 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 7/7/2009) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
197 Memorandum in Opposition 192 Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Aries Arditi filed by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 7/7/2009) Modified on 7/8/2009 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/07/2009)
198 Declaration of Marilee C. Wang in Support of 197 Memorandum in Opposition, to Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Aries Arditi filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 197 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 7/7/2009) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
199 Memorandum in Opposition re 174 MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support filed byMichael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Edney, Marsha) (Filed on 7/7/2009) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
200 Declaration of Daniel Riess in Support of 199 Memorandum in Opposition, to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMichael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit DX2031, # 2 Exhibit DX2032, # 3 Exhibit DX2033, # 4 Exhibit DX2034, # 5 Exhibit DX2035, # 6 Exhibit DX2036, # 7 Exhibit DX2037, # 8 Exhibit DX2038, # 9 Exhibit DX2039, # 10 Exhibit DX2040, # 11 Exhibit DX2041)(Related document(s) 199 ) (Edney, Marsha) (Filed on 7/7/2009) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
201 *** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 222 . *** Memorandum in Opposition 174 to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 7/7/2009) Modified on 7/8/2009 (sis, COURT STAFF). Modified on 7/8/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/07/2009)
202 Declaration of Charlotte L. Lanvers in Support of 201 Memorandum in Opposition, filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 201 ) (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 7/7/2009) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
203 EXHIBITS re 201 Memorandum in Opposition, to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Related document(s) 201 ) (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 7/7/2009) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
204 EXHIBITS re 201 Memorandum in Opposition, to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit F)(Related document(s) 201 ) (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 7/7/2009) (Entered: 07/07/2009)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 36 of 53

07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009

205 EXHIBITS re 201 Memorandum in Opposition, to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit I)(Related document(s) 201 ) (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 7/7/2009) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
206 EXHIBITS re 201 Memorandum in Opposition, to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit K)(Related document(s) 201 ) (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 7/7/2009) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
207 EXHIBITS re 201 Memorandum in Opposition, to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit M)(Related document(s) 201 ) (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 7/7/2009) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
208 EXHIBITS re 201 Memorandum in Opposition, to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit O)(Related document(s) 201 ) (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 7/7/2009) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
209 EXHIBITS re 201 Memorandum in Opposition, to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Q)(Related document(s) 201 ) (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 7/7/2009) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
210 EXHIBITS re 201 Memorandum in Opposition, to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit S, # 2 Exhibit T)(Related document(s) 201 ) (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 7/7/2009) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
211 EXHIBITS re 201 Memorandum in Opposition, to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit V)(Related document(s) 201 ) (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 7/7/2009) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
212 EXHIBITS re 201 Memorandum in Opposition, to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit E, # 2 Exhibit H)(Related document(s) 201 ) (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 7/7/2009) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
213 *** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 222 . *** EXHIBITS re 201 Memorandum in Opposition, to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Related document(s) 201 ) (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 7/7/2009) Modified on 7/8/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/07/2009)
214 MOTION to Strike 172 MOTION for Summary Judgment Declarations in Support filed by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada,

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 37 of 53

07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 07/08/2009 07/13/2009

Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. Motion Hearing set for 7/30/2009 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Ann) (Filed on 7/7/2009) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
215 Declaration of Ann K. Miller in Support of 214 MOTION to Strike 172 MOTION for Summary Judgment Declarations in Support MOTION to Strike 172 MOTION for Summary Judgment Declarations in Support filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 A, # 2 B, # 3 C, # 4 D)(Related document(s) 214 ) (Miller, Ann) (Filed on 7/7/2009) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
216 EXHIBITS re 215 Declaration in Support,, Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' Declarations in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 F, # 2 G, # 3 H, # 4 I, # 5 J)(Related document(s) 215 ) (Miller, Ann) (Filed on 7/7/2009) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
217 EXHIBITS re 215 Declaration in Support,, Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' Declarations in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 L, # 2 M, # 3 N, # 4 O, # 5 P (part 1))(Related document(s) 215 ) (Miller, Ann) (Filed on 7/7/2009) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
218 EXHIBITS re 215 Declaration in Support,, Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' Declarations in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Q)(Related document(s) 215 ) (Miller, Ann) (Filed on 7/7/2009) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
219 EXHIBITS re 214 MOTION to Strike 172 MOTION for Summary Judgment Declarations in Support MOTION to Strike 172 MOTION for Summary Judgment Declarations in Support , Evidentiary Objections filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Related document(s) 214 ) (Miller, Ann) (Filed on 7/7/2009) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
220 MOTION to Shorten Time for Hearing on Motion to Strike Declarations in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. Motion Hearing set for 7/30/2009 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Ann) (Filed on 7/7/2009) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
221 Declaration of Ann K. Miller in Support of 220 MOTION to Shorten Time for Hearing on Motion to Strike Declarations in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Related document(s) 220 ) (Miller, Ann) (Filed on 7/7/2009) (Entered: 07/07/2009)
222 Memorandum in Opposition re 172 MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 7/8/2009) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
223 ORDER by Judge Alsup GRANTING 220 PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2009) (Entered: 07/13/2009)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 38 of 53

07/14/2009 07/14/2009 07/16/2009 07/16/2009 07/16/2009 07/16/2009
07/16/2009
07/16/2009 07/17/2009 07/17/2009
07/23/2009

224 ORDER RE NEW DATES FOR TRIAL (SEPTEMBER 14, 2009) AND FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE (SEPTEMBER 2, 2009). Signed by Judge William Alsup on 7/14/2009. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2009) (Entered: 07/14/2009)
Set/Reset Hearings: Bench Trial set for 9/14/2009 07:30 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/2/2009 02:00 PM. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2009) (Entered: 07/15/2009)
225 Reply Memorandum 171 in Support of Motion to Exclude the Proffered Expert Testimony of Aries Arditi (Docket No. 192−2) filed by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Riess, Daniel) (Filed on 7/16/2009) Modified on 7/17/2009 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/16/2009)
226 Reply Memorandum re 172 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed byMichael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Scott Risner, # 2 Exhibit DX2042, # 3 Exhibit DX2043, # 4 Exhibit DX2044)(Risner, Scott) (Filed on 7/16/2009) (Entered: 07/16/2009)
227 Reply Memorandum re 174 MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 7/16/2009) (Entered: 07/16/2009)
228 Declaration of Charlotte L. Lanvers in Support of 227 Reply Memorandum, to Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Related document(s) 227 ) (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 7/16/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/24/2010: # 5 Exhibit B) (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/16/2009)
229 MOTION to Seal Exhibt B to the Declaration of Charlotte L. Lanvers In Support of Reply Memorandum to Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. Motion Hearing set for 7/30/2009 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 7/16/2009) (Entered: 07/16/2009)
230 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith re 228 Declaration in Support, of Exhibit B to Plaintiffs Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 7/16/2009) (Entered: 07/16/2009)
231 Memorandum in Opposition re 214 MOTION to Strike 172 MOTION for Summary Judgment Declarations in Support MOTION to Strike 172 MOTION for Summary Judgment Declarations in Support filed byMichael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Risner, Scott) (Filed on 7/17/2009) (Entered: 07/17/2009)
232 Declaration of Scott Risner in Support of 231 Memorandum in Opposition, filed byMichael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q)(Related document(s) 231 ) (Risner, Scott) (Filed on 7/17/2009) (Entered: 07/17/2009)
233 NOTICE by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration re 229 MOTION to Seal Exhibt B to the Declaration of Charlotte L. Lanvers In Support of Reply Memorandum to Motion for Summary Judgment −−− (Defendants' Notice of Withdrawal of Confidentiality Designations in Plaintiffs' Exhibit B) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Risner, Scott) (Filed on 7/23/2009) (Entered: 07/23/2009)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 39 of 53

07/23/2009 07/23/2009 07/23/2009 07/23/2009 07/28/2009 08/21/2009 08/26/2009 08/26/2009 08/26/2009 08/26/2009

234 Reply to Opposition re 214 MOTION to Strike 172 MOTION for Summary Judgment Declarations in Support MOTION to Strike 172 MOTION for Summary Judgment Declarations in Support filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Miller, Ann) (Filed on 7/23/2009) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
235 Declaration of Sara Jenkins in Support of 234 Reply to Opposition, of Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Declarations in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Related document(s) 234 ) (Miller, Ann) (Filed on 7/23/2009) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
236 Declaration of Ann K. Miller in Support of 234 Reply to Opposition, of Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Declarations in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Related document(s) 234 ) (Miller, Ann) (Filed on 7/23/2009) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
237 EXHIBITS re 236 Declaration in Support,, of Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Declarations in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit F, # 2 Exhibit G, # 3 Exhibit H, # 4 Exhibit I, # 5 Exhibit J, # 6 Exhibit K)(Related document(s) 236 ) (Miller, Ann) (Filed on 7/23/2009) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
238 ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND VACATING HEARING by Judge Alsup [re 171 Motion in Limine; 172 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 174 Motion for Summary Judgment; 214 Motion to Strike ; 229 Motion to Seal]. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2009) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
239 Letter from Defendants' Counsel. (Edney, Marsha) (Filed on 8/21/2009) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
240 MOTION in Limine Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 2 to Exlcude Evidence Bearing on Defendants' Effective Communication Defense filed by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. Motion Hearing set for 9/2/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
241 Declaration of Larisa Cummings in Support of 240 MOTION in Limine Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 2 to Exlcude Evidence Bearing on Defendants' Effective Communication Defense filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 240 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
242 Proposed Order re 240 MOTION in Limine Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 2 to Exlcude Evidence Bearing on Defendants' Effective Communication Defense by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
243 Memorandum in Opposition 240 Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Evidence Bearing on Defendants' Effective Communication Defense filed by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 8/26/2009) Modified on 8/27/2009

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 40 of 53

08/26/2009 08/26/2009 08/26/2009 08/26/2009 08/26/2009 08/26/2009
08/26/2009 08/26/2009

(sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/26/2009)
244 MOTION in Limine Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Defendants' Proffered Evidence of its May 22, 2007 RFI filed by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. Motion Hearing set for 9/2/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
245 Proposed Order re 244 MOTION in Limine Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Defendants' Proffered Evidence of its May 22, 2007 RFI by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
246 Memorandum in Opposition 244 Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Defendants' Proffered Evidence of its May 22, 2007 RFI filed by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Tammy Renee Cooper, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 8/26/2009) Modified on 8/27/2009 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/26/2009)
247 Declaration of Daniel Riess in Support of 246 Memorandum in Opposition, to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Defendants' Proffered Evidence of its May 22, 2007 RFI filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 246 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
248 MOTION in Limine Plaintiffs' Motion of Limine No. 4 to Exclude Evidence Bearing on Defendants' Undue Burden Defense That They Failed to Produce Pursuant to FRCP 26 By Close of Fact Discovery or in the Alternative to Reopen Discovery and Allow Additional Expert filed by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. Motion Hearing set for 9/2/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
249 Declaration of Ann K. Miller in Support of 248 MOTION in Limine Plaintiffs' Motion of Limine No. 4 to Exclude Evidence Bearing on Defendants' Undue Burden Defense That They Failed to Produce Pursuant to FRCP 26 By Close of Fact Discovery or in the Alternative to Reopen Discovery and A llow Additional Expert filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Related document(s) 248 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
250 EXHIBITS re 249 Declaration in Support,,, filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit L, # 2 Exhibit M, # 3 Exhibit N, # 4 Exhibit O, # 5 Exhibit P, # 6 Exhibit Q, # 7 Exhibit R, # 8 Exhibit S, # 9 Exhibit T)(Related document(s) 249 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
251 Proposed Order re 248 MOTION in Limine Plaintiffs' Motion of Limine No. 4 to Exclude Evidence Bearing on Defendants' Undue Burden Defense That They Failed to Produce Pursuant to FRCP 26 By Close of Fact Discovery or in the Alternative to Reopen Discovery and A llow Additional Expert by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 41 of 53

08/26/2009 08/26/2009 08/26/2009 08/26/2009 08/26/2009 08/26/2009 08/26/2009 08/26/2009 08/26/2009 08/26/2009

252 Memorandum in Opposition 248 Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Evidence Bearing on Defendants' Undue Burden Defense filed by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 8/26/2009) Modified on 8/27/2009 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/26/2009)
253 Declaration of Daniel Riess in Support of 252 Memorandum in Opposition, filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 252 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
254 MOTION in Limine Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 5 to Exclude Evidence Newly Created Since the Close of Fact Discovery filed by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. Motion Hearing set for 9/2/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
255 Declaration of Ann K. Miller in Support of 254 MOTION in Limine Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 5 to Exclude Evidence Newly Created Since the Close of Fact Discovery filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 254 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
256 Proposed Order re 254 MOTION in Limine Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 5 to Exclude Evidence Newly Created Since the Close of Fact Discovery by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
257 Memorandum in Opposition 254 Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 5 to Exclude Evidence Newly Created Since the Close of Fact Discovery filed by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 8/26/2009) Modified on 8/27/2009 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/26/2009)
258 Declaration of Daniel Riess in Support of 257 Memorandum in Opposition, filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Related document(s) 257 ) (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
259 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. Plaintiffs' First Amended Rule 26(a)(3) Pre−Trial Disclosures. (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
260 OBJECTIONS to Defendants Objections to Plaintiffs First Amended Rule 26(a)(3) Pre−Trial Disclosures by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
261 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. Defendants' First Amended Rule 26(a)(3) Pre−Trial Disclosures. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Objections)(Risner, Scott) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 42 of 53

08/26/2009
08/26/2009
08/26/2009 08/26/2009 08/26/2009 08/26/2009
08/26/2009 09/03/2009 09/03/2009 09/04/2009 09/08/2009 09/08/2009 09/09/2009

262 MOTION in Limine #1 to Exclude the Proffered Expert Testimony of Aries Arditi filed by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. Motion Hearing set for 9/2/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Riess Declaration, # 2 Ex DX2002, # 3 Ex DX2004, # 4 Ex DX2005, # 5 Ex DX2012, # 6 Ex DX2013, # 7 Proposed Order, # 8 Plaintiffs' Opposition, # 9 Wang Declaration, # 10 Plaintiffs' Opposition Ex A, # 11 Plaintiffs' Opposition Ex B, # 12 Plaintiffs' Opposition Ex C, # 13 Plaintiffs' Proposed Order)(Riess, Daniel) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
263 MOTION in Limine #2 to Preclude the Use of Exhibits Not Provided by George Kerscher in His Expert Reports filed by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. Motion Hearing set for 9/2/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Riess Declaration, # 2 Ex DX2008, # 3 Ex DX2011, # 4 Ex DX2013, # 5 Proposed Order, # 6 Plaintiffs' Opposition, # 7 Plaintiffs' Proposed Order)(Riess, Daniel) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
264 Proposed Findings of Fact by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Risner, Scott) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
265 TRIAL BRIEF by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Riess, Daniel) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
266 TRIAL BRIEF Plaintiffs' Trial Brief by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
267 Proposed Order (Joint Proposed Order Submitted Pursuant to Paragraph 2(a) of the Court's Bench Trial Guidelines by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Michael J. Astrue, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith, Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A to Joint Proposed Order − Joint Exhibit List, # 2 Appendix B to Joint Proposed Order − Statement of Witness Testimony)(Su, Henry) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
268 Proposed Findings of Fact by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 8/26/2009) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
269 Minute Entry: Pretrial Conference held. (Date Filed: 9/2/2009). Proposed order of rulings due 9/11/09 by 9:00 a.m. (Court Reporter Debra Pas.) (fj, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/3/2009) (Entered: 09/03/2009)
270 Letter Brief to Judge Alsup from Charlotte Lanvers filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 9/3/2009) (Entered: 09/03/2009)
271 Letter Brief re 270 Letter Brief, filed byMichael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Related document(s) 270 ) (Risner, Scott) (Filed on 9/4/2009) (Entered: 09/04/2009)
272 Letter from Marilee C. Wang Re Joint Set of Trial Exhibits. (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 9/8/2009) (Entered: 09/08/2009)
273 Proposed Order Authorizing Equipment to be Brought Into the Courthouse for Purpose of Trial by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Wang, Marilee) (Filed on 9/8/2009) (Entered: 09/08/2009)
274 ORDER AUTHORIZING EQUIPMENT TO BE BROUGHT INTO THE COURTHOUSE FOR PURPOSE OF TRIAL. Signed by Judge Alsup on September 9, 2009. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2009) (Entered: 09/09/2009)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 43 of 53

09/09/2009 09/11/2009 09/13/2009 09/13/2009 09/13/2009 09/13/2009 09/13/2009
09/13/2009 09/14/2009 09/14/2009
09/14/2009
09/14/2009

275 ORDER RE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3. Signed by Judge Alsup on September 9, 2009. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2009) (Entered: 09/09/2009)
276 FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Judge Alsup on September 11, 2009. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2009) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
277 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION of Scarlett Miles by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith for proceedings held on September 15, 2009 before Judge William H. Alsup.. (Lu, Jennifer) (Filed on 9/13/2009) (Entered: 09/13/2009)
278 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION Scarlett Miles (Part 2) by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith for proceedings held on September 15, 2009 before Judge William H. Alsup.. (Lu, Jennifer) (Filed on 9/13/2009) (Entered: 09/13/2009)
279 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION Scarlett Miles (Part 3) by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith for proceedings held on September 15, 2009 before Judge William H. Alsup.. (Lu, Jennifer) (Filed on 9/13/2009) (Entered: 09/13/2009)
280 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION Scarlett Miles (Part 4) by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith for proceedings held on September 15, 2009 before Judge William H. Alsup.. (Lu, Jennifer) (Filed on 9/13/2009) (Entered: 09/13/2009)
281 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION Defendants' Counter−Designation of Scarlett Miles' Deposition by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith for proceedings held on September 15, 2009 before Judge William H. Alsup.. (Lu, Jennifer) (Filed on 9/13/2009) (Entered: 09/13/2009)
282 Declaration of Scarlett Miles In Support of Her Unavailability to Attend Trial filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Lu, Jennifer) (Filed on 9/13/2009) (Entered: 09/13/2009)
283 ORDER RE PRETRIAL RULINGS by Judge Alsup (re 240 Motion in Limine; 244 Motion in Limine; 248 Motion in Limine; 254 Motion in Limine; 262 Motion in Limine; 263 Motion in Limine). (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2009) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
284 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION of Peter Spencer (part 1) by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Tammy Renee Cooper, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Dorothy Jackson, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith for proceedings held on September 16, 209 before Judge Alsup.. (Lu, Jennifer) (Filed on 9/14/2009) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
285 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION of Peter Spencer (part 2) by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Tammy Renee Cooper, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Dorothy Jackson, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith for proceedings held on September 16, 2009 before Judge Alsup.. (Lu, Jennifer) (Filed on 9/14/2009) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
286 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION of Peter Spencer (part 3) by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Tammy Renee Cooper, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Dorothy Jackson, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith for proceedings held on September 16, 2009 before Judge Alsup.. (Lu, Jennifer) (Filed on 9/14/2009) (Entered: 09/14/2009)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 44 of 53

09/14/2009 09/14/2009 09/14/2009 09/14/2009 09/14/2009 09/14/2009 09/14/2009 09/14/2009 09/14/2009 09/14/2009

287 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION of Peter Spencer (part 4) by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Tammy Renee Cooper, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Dorothy Jackson, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith for proceedings held on September 16, 2009 before Judge Alsup.. (Lu, Jennifer) (Filed on 9/14/2009) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
288 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION of Peter Spencer (part 5) by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Tammy Renee Cooper, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Dorothy Jackson, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith for proceedings held on September 16, 2009 before Judge Alsup.. (Lu, Jennifer) (Filed on 9/14/2009) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
289 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION of Peter Spencer (part 6) by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Tammy Renee Cooper, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Dorothy Jackson, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith for proceedings held on September 16, 2009 before Judge Alsup.. (Lu, Jennifer) (Filed on 9/14/2009) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
290 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION of Peter Spencer (part 7) by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Tammy Renee Cooper, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Dorothy Jackson, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith for proceedings held on September 16, 2009 before Judge Alsup.. (Lu, Jennifer) (Filed on 9/14/2009) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
291 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION of Peter Spencer (part 8) by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Tammy Renee Cooper, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Dorothy Jackson, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith for proceedings held on September 16, 2009 before Judge Alsup.. (Lu, Jennifer) (Filed on 9/14/2009) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
292 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION of Peter Spencer (part 9) by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Tammy Renee Cooper, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Dorothy Jackson, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith for proceedings held on September 16, 2009 before Judge Alsup.. (Lu, Jennifer) (Filed on 9/14/2009) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
293 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION of Peter Spencer (part 10) by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Tammy Renee Cooper, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Dorothy Jackson, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith for proceedings held on September 16, 2009 before Judge Alsup.. (Lu, Jennifer) (Filed on 9/14/2009) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
294 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION of Alan Lane (part 1) by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Tammy Renee Cooper, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Dorothy Jackson, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith for proceedings held on September 16, 2009 before Judge Alsup.. (Lu, Jennifer) (Filed on 9/14/2009) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
295 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION Alan Lane (part 2) by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Tammy Renee Cooper, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Dorothy Jackson, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith for proceedings held on September 16, 2006 before Judge Alsup.. (Lu, Jennifer) (Filed on 9/14/2009) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
296 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION Alan Lane (part 3) by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Tammy Renee Cooper, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Dorothy Jackson, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith for proceedings held on September

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 45 of 53

09/14/2009 09/14/2009 09/14/2009 09/15/2009 09/16/2009 09/16/2009 09/18/2009
09/18/2009
09/18/2009

16, 2009 before Judge Alsup.. (Lu, Jennifer) (Filed on 9/14/2009) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
297 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION of Alan Lane's Reponses to Request for Admission by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Tammy Renee Cooper, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Dorothy Jackson, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith for proceedings held on September 16, 2009 before Judge Alsup.. (Lu, Jennifer) (Filed on 9/14/2009) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
298 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION of Alan Lane (part 4) by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Tammy Renee Cooper, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Dorothy Jackson, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith for proceedings held on September 16, 2009 before Judge Alsup.. (Lu, Jennifer) (Filed on 9/14/2009) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
299 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION of Alan Lane's responses to Request for Interrogatories by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Tammy Renee Cooper, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Dorothy Jackson, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith for proceedings held on September 16, 2009 before Judge Alsup.. (Lu, Jennifer) (Filed on 9/14/2009) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
300 MOTION for Reconsideration re 275 Order re Motion in Limine No. 3 filed by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. Motion Hearing set for 9/17/2009 07:30 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Risner, Scott) (Filed on 9/15/2009) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
301 NOTICE REGARDING QUESTIONS BY COURT. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2009) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
302 Memorandum in Opposition 300 to Defs' Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order re Motion in Limine No. 3 filed by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 9/16/2009) Modified on 9/17/2009 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/16/2009)
303 Transcript of Proceedings held on September 14, 2009, before Judge William H. Alsup. Court Reporter/Transcriber Katherine Sullivan, CRR and Belle Ball, CRR, Telephone number 415−794−6659. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/14/2009. (Sullivan, Katherine) (Filed on 9/18/2009) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
304 Transcript of Proceedings held on September 15, 2009, before Judge William H. Alsup. Court Reporter/Transcriber Katherine Sullivan, CRR and Belle Ball, CRR, Telephone number 415−794−6659. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/14/2009. (Sullivan, Katherine) (Filed on 9/18/2009) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
305 Transcript of Proceedings held on September 16, 2009, before Judge William H. Alsup. Court Reporter/Transcriber Katherine Sullivan, CRR and Belle Ball, CRR, Telephone number 415−794−6659. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 46 of 53

09/18/2009
09/22/2009 09/24/2009 09/24/2009 09/24/2009 09/24/2009 09/24/2009

through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/14/2009. (Sullivan, Katherine) (Filed on 9/18/2009) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
306 Transcript of Proceedings held on September 17, 2009, before Judge William H. Alsup. Court Reporter/Transcriber Katherine Sullivan, CRR and Belle Ball, CRR, Telephone number 415−794−6659. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/14/2009. (Sullivan, Katherine) (Filed on 9/18/2009) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
307 ORDER REGARDING FORMAT OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AFTER BENCH TRIAL. Signed by Judge Alsup on September 22, 2009. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2009) (Entered: 09/22/2009)
308 Transcript of Proceedings held on 9/21/09, before Judge William H. Alsup. Court Reporter/Transcriber Katherine Sullivan, CRR and Belle Ball, CRR, Telephone number 415−794−6659. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/21/2009. (Sullivan, Katherine) (Filed on 9/24/2009) (Entered: 09/24/2009)
309 Transcript of Proceedings held on 9/22/09, before Judge William H. Alsup. Court Reporter/Transcriber Katherine Sullivan, CRR and Belle Ball, CRR, Telephone number 415−794−6659. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/21/2009. (Sullivan, Katherine) (Filed on 9/24/2009) (Entered: 09/24/2009)
310 Transcript of Proceedings held on 9/23/09, before Judge William H. Alsup. Court Reporter/Transcriber Katherine Sullivan, CRR and Belle Ball, CRR, Telephone number 415−794−6659. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/21/2009. (Sullivan, Katherine) (Filed on 9/24/2009) (Entered: 09/24/2009)
311 ERRATA − Plaintiffs' Notice of Errata and Withdrawal of Slide Number 7 by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Mayerson, Arlene) (Filed on 9/24/2009) (Entered: 09/24/2009)
312 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs Motion To Strike Trial Testimony Of Mark Graydon Relating To Special Mailer Costs And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support filed by Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. Motion Hearing set for 9/21/2009 07:30 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Su, Henry) (Filed on 9/24/2009) (Entered: 09/24/2009)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 47 of 53

09/24/2009
09/28/2009
09/29/2009 09/29/2009 09/29/2009
09/29/2009 10/02/2009 10/02/2009 10/02/2009
10/02/2009 10/20/2009 10/20/2009 10/29/2009

313 Declaration of Henry C. Su in Support of 312 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs Motion To Strike Trial Testimony Of Mark Graydon Relating To Special Mailer Costs And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Related document(s) 312 ) (Su, Henry) (Filed on 9/24/2009) (Entered: 09/24/2009)
314 Memorandum in Opposition re 312 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs Motion To Strike Trial Testimony Of Mark Graydon Relating To Special Mailer Costs And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support filed byMichael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Riess Declaration, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B)(Riess, Daniel) (Filed on 9/28/2009) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
315 Proposed Findings of Fact by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration (Post−trial). (Risner, Scott) (Filed on 9/29/2009) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
316 TRIAL BRIEF (Post−Trial Brief) by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Riess, Daniel) (Filed on 9/29/2009) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
317 Proposed Findings of Fact by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. (Cummings, Larisa) (Filed on 9/29/2009) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
318 TRIAL BRIEF (Plaintiffs' Post−Trial Brief) by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 9/29/2009) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
319 RESPONSE to re 317 Proposed Findings of Fact, by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Risner, Scott) (Filed on 10/2/2009) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
320 Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Post−Trial Brief 318 filed by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Riess, Daniel) (Filed on 10/2/2009) Modified on 10/5/2009 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/02/2009)
321 RESPONSE in Support of Pltfs' Opposition to Defts' FF and COL 315 filed by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell. (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 10/2/2009) Modified on 10/5/2009 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/02/2009)
322 TRIAL BRIEF Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Post−Trial Brief by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Mayerson, Arlene) (Filed on 10/2/2009) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
323 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AFTER BENCH TRIAL. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 10/20/2009. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2009) (Entered: 10/20/2009)
324 JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 10/20/2009. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2009) (Entered: 10/20/2009)
325 STIPULATION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR FILING MOTION FOR FEE APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER] by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Lanvers ISO Stipulation to Expand Time)(Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 10/29/2009) (Entered: 10/29/2009)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 48 of 53

10/30/2009 10/30/2009 11/03/2009 11/04/2009 11/10/2009
11/23/2009 11/24/2009
11/24/2009
11/24/2009 11/24/2009 11/30/2009 12/01/2009 12/01/2009 12/02/2009

326 NOTICE RE RECEIPT OF EMAIL (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A). (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2009) (Entered: 10/30/2009)
327 ORDER DENYING MASSIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ATTORNEY'S FEE REQUEST. Signed by Judge Alsup on October 30, 2009. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2009) (Entered: 10/30/2009)
328 ORDER RE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS. Signed by Judge Alsup on November 3, 2009. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2009) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
329 TRIAL EXHIBITS − 1 Expando − Shelf #78. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2009) Modified on 11/5/2009 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/05/2009)
330 MOTION for Attorney Fees PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS filed by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. Motion Hearing set for 12/17/2009 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit DECLARATION OF ARLENE B. MAYERSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS)(Mayerson, Arlene) (Filed on 11/10/2009) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
331 STIPULATION for approval of language for notice of relief in accordance with Court's decision by Michael J. Astrue. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Notice of Relief)(Edney, Marsha) (Filed on 11/23/2009) (Entered: 11/23/2009)
332 Statement of Non−Opposition re 330 MOTION for Attorney Fees PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS filed byMichael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Related document(s) 330 ) (Risner, Scott) (Filed on 11/24/2009) (Entered: 11/24/2009)
333 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 328 Order Regarding Attorney's Fees and Costs filed by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. Motion Hearing set for 12/17/2009 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Marsha S. Edney, # 2 Declaration of Wondie Russell, # 3 Proposed Order)(Risner, Scott) (Filed on 11/24/2009) (Entered: 11/24/2009)
334 STIPULATION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR HEARING ON JOINT MOTION TO AMEND ORDER REGARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS (Dkt. 333) by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Risner, Scott) (Filed on 11/24/2009) (Entered: 11/24/2009)
335 NOTICE by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration (NOTICE OF FILING DEFENDANTS' IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER OF OCT. 20, 2009) (Attachments: # 1 Defendants' Implementation Plan, # 2 Exhibit A)(Risner, Scott) (Filed on 11/24/2009) (Entered: 11/24/2009)
336 ORDER APPROVING JOINTLY PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR NOTICE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Alsup on November 30, 2009. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2009) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
337 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEY'S FEES AND VACATING HEARING by Judge Alsup granting 330 Motion for Attorney Fees (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2009) (Entered: 12/01/2009)
338 ORDER REGARDING JOINT MOTION TO AMEND ORDER REGARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES AND VACATING HEARING by Judge Alsup granting in part and denying in part 333 Motion to Amend/Correct ; (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2009) (Entered: 12/01/2009)
339 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER REGARDING NOTICE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 2, 2009. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2009) (Entered: 12/02/2009)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 49 of 53

12/08/2009 12/08/2009 12/08/2009 12/15/2009 12/15/2009
12/18/2009 12/18/2009
12/21/2009 12/24/2009
12/28/2009 12/29/2009

340 Emergency MOTION to Vacate Supplemental Order Regarding Notice of Implementation of Judgment or, in the Alternative, to Clarify the Order filed by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Third Declaration of Michelle King, # 2 Second Declaration of Gary Arnold, # 3 Declaration of Aaron Knight)(Riess, Daniel) (Filed on 12/8/2009) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
341 STIPULATION re 340 Emergency MOTION to Vacate Supplemental Order Regarding Notice of Implementation of Judgment or, in the Alternative, to Clarify the Order Under Civl Local Rule 7−12 to Obtain Immediate Determination by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Riess, Daniel) (Filed on 12/8/2009) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
342 ORDER CLARIFYING SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE LANGUAGE by Judge Alsup denying 340 Motion to Vacate (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2009) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
343 BILL OF COSTS (Incurred by Howrey LLP) by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Howrey LLP's Itemization of Taxable Costs, # 2 Affidavit Supplemental Declaration of Henry C. Su in Support of Plaintiffs' Bill of Costs)(Su, Henry) (Filed on 12/15/2009) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
344 BILL OF COSTS Declaration of Wondie Russell in Support of Plaintiffs' Bill of Costs by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Michael J. Astrue, Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Tammy Renee Cooper, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Dorothy Jackson, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Wondie Russell in Support of Plaintiffs' Bill of Costs)(Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 12/15/2009) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
345 NOTICE by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration (NOTICE OF FILING REVISED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER OF OCT. 20, 2009) (Attachments: # 1 Defendants' Revised Implementation Plan)(Risner, Scott) (Filed on 12/18/2009) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
346 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants Revised Implementation Plan 345 filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of A. Mayerson ISO Plaintiffs Objections to Defendants Proposed Implementation Plan, # 2 Exhibit A to the Decl. of A. Mayerson, # 3 Exhibit B to the Decl. of A. Mayerson)(Mayerson, Arlene) (Filed on 12/18/2009) Modified on 12/21/2009 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
347 BILL OF COSTS Corrected Declaration of Wondie Russell in Support of Bill of Costs [Clarifying Filing Parties and Attaching Searchable PDFs] by American Council of the Blind. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 12/21/2009) (Entered: 12/21/2009)
348 MOTION to Amend/Correct 323 Findings of Fact &Conclusions of Law filed by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. Motion Hearing set for 1/28/2010 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Risner Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A (Carlo Declaration), # 3 Exhibit B (Parry Declaration), # 4 Exhibit C (Third Arnold Declaration), # 5 Exhibit D (Payne Declaration), # 6 Proposed Order)(Risner, Scott) (Filed on 12/24/2009) (Entered: 12/24/2009)
349 RESPONSE to 345 Plaintiffs' Objections to Revised Implementation Plan by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Edney, Marsha) (Filed on 12/28/2009) Modified on 12/29/2009 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/28/2009)
350 OBJECTIONS to Plaintiffs' Bill of Costs by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Edney, Marsha) (Filed on 12/29/2009) (Entered: 12/29/2009)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 50 of 53

12/29/2009 12/29/2009 12/30/2009 12/31/2009
01/05/2010 01/07/2010 01/07/2010
01/07/2010
01/07/2010
01/07/2010

351 ORDER SETTING JANUARY 14 HEARING DATE FOR THE REVISED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 29, 2009. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2009) (Entered: 12/29/2009)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 1/14/2010 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2009) (Entered: 12/30/2009)
352 RESPONSE to re 350 Objection to Plaintiffs' Bills of Costs by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Su, Henry) (Filed on 12/30/2009) (Entered: 12/30/2009)
353 Transcript of Proceedings held on 09/02/09, before Judge William Alsup. Court Reporter/Transcriber Sahar McVickar, CSR, RPR, Telephone number (415) 626−6060/sahar_mcvickar@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/31/2010. (McVickar, Sahar) (Filed on 12/31/2009) (Entered: 12/31/2009)
354 ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO AMEND FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Signed by Judge Alsup on January 5, 2010. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2010) (Entered: 01/05/2010)
355 Memorandum in Opposition re 348 MOTION to Amend/Correct 323 Findings of Fact &Conclusions of Law MOTION to Amend/Correct 323 Findings of Fact &Conclusions of Law filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Declaration of G. Kerscher, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of M. Brunson)(Yee, Silvia) (Filed on 1/7/2010) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
356 Declaration of A. Mayerson ISO Pltfs' Application for Attorney's Fees 328 Pursuant to the November 3, 2009 Court Order filed by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. Motion Hearing set for 2/4/2010 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Mayerson, Arlene) (Filed on 1/7/2010) Modified on 1/8/2010 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/07/2010)
357 *** CORRECTION OF EXHIBIT 1. REFER TO DOCUMENT 360 . *** Declaration of K. Wilde ISO Pltfs' Application for Attorney's Fees 328 Pursuant to the November 3, 2009 Court Order filed by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. Motion Hearing set for 2/4/2010 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit to the Decl of Kathy Wilde ISO Attorney's Fees)(Mayerson, Arlene) (Filed on 1/7/2010) Modified on 1/8/2010 (sis, COURT STAFF). Modified on 1/8/2010 (feriab, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/07/2010)
358 Declaration of G. McIntyre ISO Pltfs' Application for Attorney's Fees 328 Pursuant to the November 3, 2009 Court Order filed by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. Motion Hearing set for 2/4/2010 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to the Declaration of G. McIntyre ISO of Attorney's Fees, # 2 Exhibit B to the Declaration of G. McIntyre ISO of Attorney's Fees)(Mayerson, Arlene) (Filed on 1/7/2010) Modified on 1/8/2010 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/07/2010)
359 Declaration of Wondie Russell in Support of 328 Order Plaintiffs' Application for Heller Ehrman LLP's Attorney's Fees and Costs filed byAmerican Council of the

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 51 of 53

01/08/2010 01/08/2010
01/11/2010 01/11/2010
01/13/2010 01/14/2010 01/14/2010 01/14/2010
01/22/2010 01/25/2010

Blind. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 [Part 1 of 2], # 2 Exhibit 1 [Part 2 of 2], # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9)(Related document(s) 328 ) (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 1/7/2010) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
360 EXHIBITS : CORRECTION OF DOCKET # [357−1]; CORRECTED EXHIBIT/ATTACHMENT to the Declaration of K. Wilde ISO Plaintiffs Application for Attorney's Fees Pursuant to the November 3, 2009 Court Order; filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Mayerson, Arlene) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
361 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Fee Declaration filed by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Henry Su ISO Motion, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Sonya Schwab, # 3 Affidavit Declaration of Henry Su ISO Fee Application, # 4 Proposed Order)(Su, Henry) (Filed on 1/8/2010) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
362 ORDER GRANTING ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE FEE DECLARATION by Judge Alsup granting 361 Motion for Extension of Time to File (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2010) (Entered: 01/11/2010)
363 Declaration of Henry C. Su in Support of 362 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File [Corrected] Declaration of Henry C. Su in Support of Howrey LLP's Application for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Part Two, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 362 ) (Su, Henry) (Filed on 1/11/2010) (Entered: 01/11/2010)
364 NOTICE by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith re 346 Memorandum in Opposition,, NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF OBJECTIONS TO DEFS' REVISED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (DKT. NO. 345−1) AND REQUEST TO VACATE HEARING (Mayerson, Arlene) (Filed on 1/13/2010) (Entered: 01/13/2010)
365 ORDER VACATING HEARING ON REVISED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. Signed by Judge Alsup on January 14, 2010. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2010) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
366 Reply Memorandum re 348 MOTION to Amend/Correct 323 Findings of Fact &Conclusions of Law MOTION to Amend/Correct 323 Findings of Fact &Conclusions of Law filed byMichael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Risner, Scott) (Filed on 1/14/2010) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
367 Declaration of Wondie Russell in Support of 359 Declaration in Support, Attaching Corrected Exhibit 8 to Plaintiffs Application for Heller Ehrman LLP's Attorney's Fees &Costs filed byMary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Corrected Exhibit 8)(Related document(s) 359 ) (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 1/14/2010) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
368 ORDER AMENDING COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE AND VACATING HEARING by Judge Alsup granting 348 Motion to Amend/Correct ; (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2010) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
369 RESPONSE to re 363 Declaration in Support,, 359 Declaration in Support, 360 Exhibits, 367 Declaration in Support, (DEFS' RESPONSE TO PLS' APPLICATIONS FOR ATTORNEYS FEES) by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Risner, Scott) (Filed on 1/25/2010) (Entered: 01/25/2010)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 52 of 53

02/08/2010 02/09/2010 03/25/2010 03/25/2010
03/26/2010 04/01/2010
04/02/2010 04/06/2010 04/07/2010 05/26/2010 11/15/2010 11/10/2011 11/21/2011

370 NOTICE by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith re 338 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct JOINT NOTICE REGARDING SETTLEMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 2/8/2010) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
371 ORDER REGARDING JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES. Signed by Judge Alsup on February 9, 2010. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2010) (Entered: 02/09/2010)
372 MOTION to Amend/Correct 368 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct filed by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. Motion Hearing set for 4/8/2010 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Risner Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Proposed Order)(Risner, Scott) (Filed on 3/25/2010) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
373 STIPULATION re 372 MOTION to Amend/Correct 368 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct MOTION to Amend/Correct 368 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct (STIPULATION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO AMEND ORDER AMENDING COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE) by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration. (Risner, Scott) (Filed on 3/25/2010) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
374 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO SHORTEN TIME. Signed by Judge Alsup on March 26, 2010. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2010) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
375 NOTICE by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith re 372 MOTION to Amend/Correct 368 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct JOINT STIPULATION AND PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF NON−OPPOSITION REGARDING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO AMEND ORDER AMENDING COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 4/1/2010) Modified on 4/2/2010 (wsn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/01/2010)
376 SECOND ORDER AMENDING COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE AND VACATING HEARING by Judge Alsup granting 372 Motion to Amend/Correct ; (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2010) (Entered: 04/02/2010)
377 *** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT 378 . *** STIPULATION re 371 Order, 370 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) Re Attorney's Fees &Costs by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind. (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 4/6/2010) Modified on 4/8/2010 (feriab, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/06/2010)
378 STIPULATION re 371 Order, 370 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) Corrected Stipulation re Attorney's Fees and Costs by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind. (Russell, Wondie) (Filed on 4/7/2010) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
379 NOTICE by Michael J. Astrue, Social Security Administration (DEFENDANTS' CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE) (Attachments: # 1 Risner Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A (Third Carlo Declaration), # 3 Exhibit B (Third Parry Declaration))(Risner, Scott) (Filed on 5/26/2010) (Entered: 05/26/2010)
380 NOTICE of Change of Address by Arlene Brynne Mayerson : NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR DREDF (Mayerson, Arlene) (Filed on 11/15/2010) (Entered: 11/15/2010)
381 CLERKS NOTICE: In accordance with Civil L.R. 79−4(b), it is requested that counsel withdraw their exhibits within thirty (30) days of this notice. One (1) expanding folder containing manila folders. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2011) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
382 CLERKS NOTICE re 381 CLERKS NOTICE: Receipt for Exhibits. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2011) (Entered: 11/21/2011)

Case: 3:05-cv-04696-WHA As of: 05/21/2012 11:54 AM PDT 53 of 53

04/16/2012 04/18/2012 04/30/2012
05/01/2012

383 ORDER REGARDING LETTER RECEIVED ON APRIL 13, 2012.. Signed by Judge Alsup on April 16, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2012) (Entered: 04/16/2012)
384 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, George P. Smith re 383 Order Proof of Service on Attorneys for SSA (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 4/18/2012) (Entered: 04/18/2012)
385 Statement re 383 Order REGARDING LETTER RECEIVED ON APRIL 13, 2012 by Mary Ann Alexander, American Council of the Blind, Arlene Doherty, Alice Marjorie Donovan, Billie Jean Keith, Scarlett Miles, Marvelena Quesada, Laura M. Russell, George P. Smith. (Lanvers, Charlotte) (Filed on 4/30/2012) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
386 Letter from Stephanie Ramey dated March 24, 2012. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1, # 2 Attachment 2, # 3 Attachment 3, # 4 Attachment 4, # 5 Attachment 5, # 6 Attachment 6, # 7 Attachment 7, # 8 Attachment 8, # 9 Attachment 9, # 10 Attachment 10, # 11 Attachment 11, # 12 Attachment 12, # 13 Attachment 13, # 14 Attachment 14)(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2012) (Entered: 05/01/2012)