Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00804/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00804-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY MORT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, )

Commissioner of Social )

Security, )

)

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:07-cv-01478-AWI-SMS

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR

FILING LATE RESPONSIVE BRIEF

REGARDING MOTION TO STRIKE (DOC.

20)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO STRIKE BRIEF (DOC. 18)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE

A SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMARY OF FACTS

NO LATER THAN FIFTEEN DAYS AFTER

THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

DIRECTIONS TO DEFENDANT TO FILE

DEFENDANT’S BRIEF NO LATER THAN

THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF

SERVICE OF PLAINTIFF’S

SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMARY 

Plaintiff is proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(15) and 72-303.

On May 21, 2008, Plaintiff filed the opening brief. Almost a

month later on June 17, 2008, Defendant filed a motion to strike

Plaintiff’s brief because it did not comply with the Court’s

Case 2:09-cv-00804-KJM Document 22 Filed 07/08/08 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

scheduling order that issued on October 11, 2007. Paragraph

eleven of the order required that the brief contain a summary of

all relevant medical evidence and a summary of all relevant

testimony.

The Court granted Plaintiff an opportunity to file

opposition to the motion to strike, which Plaintiff subsequently

filed on July 7, 2008.

I. Plaintiff’s Application to File Late Opposition

Plaintiff’s application to file a late opposition omits any

statement of good cause for Plaintiff’s counsel’s initial failure

to be aware of and process the minute order directing the filing

of opposition. As with all minute orders, this minute order was

transmitted electronically to the parties on June 18, 2008.

However, in the interests of facilitating the progress of

the case towards resolution on the merits, Plaintiff’s

application to file a late opposition IS GRANTED. 

II. Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Brief

Review of the brief submitted by Plaintiff reveals that

facts are set forth in the argument section of the brief, but

there is no section that directly and simply summarizes the

relevant medical history and the testimony. 

 A “summary” is a statement of matter set forth for easier

remembering, for better understanding, or for showing the

relation of points. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary

of the English Language Unabridged p. 2289 (2202). The scheduling

order requires summaries, as distinct from descriptions or

statements, of the relevant medical evidence and the testimony.

(Sched. Order, ¶ 11(b), (c).) The purpose of the requirement of a

Case 2:09-cv-00804-KJM Document 22 Filed 07/08/08 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

summary is to inform the Court in the most useful fashion of the

medical history and testimony of an applicant. The summary form,

as distinct from scattered references to medical evidence or

testimony in argument, is particularly helpful in cases involving

review of administrative decisions of the Commissioner of Social

Security because it is necessary for the Court to have a

chronological overview of the medical record; further, in many

cases, the Court must review the Commissioner’s weighing of the

entire medical record. The clear intent of the scheduling order

is to put the burden on the parties, and not the Court, to

summarize the relevant evidence concisely and fully.

Although the brief filed by Plaintiff does advert to the

medical evidence and testimony, it does so in a form that is not

as useful to the Court as the summary form. Plaintiff’s brief

does not comply with the letter or spirit of the scheduling

order. This defect is particularly problematic in light of the

high caseload of this Court and the shortage of judicial

resources. 

A court has inherent power to control its docket and the

disposition of its cases with economy of time and effort for both

the court and the parties. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S.

248, 254-255 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th

Cir. 1992). Further, the Court has broad discretion to interpret

and apply its local rules. Dulange v. Dutro Construction, Inc.,

183 F.3d 916, 919 n. 2 (9 Cir. 1999). th

In this instance, in light of the nature of the analysis and

argument set forth in the brief, and in the effort to minimize

any further delay, the Court will not strike the entire brief of

Case 2:09-cv-00804-KJM Document 22 Filed 07/08/08 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

the Plaintiff. Instead, the Court will grant Plaintiff fifteen

days in which to serve and file a supplemental summary of medical

evidence and testimony, which shall be considered by the Court

and the Defendant as part of the opening brief.

III. Informational Order to Plaintiff and Counsel

Plaintiff and his counsel, Young Cho and the Law Offices of

Lawrence D. Rohlfing, ARE INFORMED that the Court’s scheduling

order requires a statement in summary form of the relevant

medical evidence and testimony. Briefs that omit this requirement

ARE SUBJECT TO BEING STRICKEN.

Further, Plaintiff and his counsel ARE INFORMED that any

failure to comply with the provisions of the scheduling order

will be considered to be a failure to comply with an order of the

Court and may result in either a recommendation that sanctions,

including dismissal, be imposed, or in the direct imposition of

such sanctions. 

A failure to comply with an order of the Court may result in

sanctions, including dismissal, pursuant to the inherent power of

the Court, statutes, or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), 11; Local Rule 11-110; Chambers v. NASCO,

Inc., 501 U.S. 31, 42-43 (1991). A court may impose monetary

sanctions, payable to the court, in the nature of a fine pursuant

to the court’s inherent powers where the Court finds that the

offending conduct was undertaken in bad faith. Zambrano v. City

of Tustin, 885 F.2d 1473, 1478 (9 Cir. 1989). Monetary sanctions th

may be imposed for violation of a local rule upon a finding of

conduct amounting to recklessness, gross negligence, or repeated

unintentional flouting of court rules. Id. at 1480. Sanctions

Case 2:09-cv-00804-KJM Document 22 Filed 07/08/08 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

should not be imposed without giving counsel notice and an

opportunity to be heard. Miranda v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co.,

710 F.2d 516, 522-23 (9 Cir. 1983). th

Further, 28 U.S.C. § 1927 provides:

Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct

cases in any court of the United States or Territory

thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any

case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required

by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs,

expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred

because of such conduct.

For action to be considered unreasonable and vexatious, it must

involve bad faith, improper motive, or reckless disregard of the

duty owed to the Court. Edwards v. General Motors Corp., 153 F.3d

242, 246 (5th Cir. 1998); New Alaska Development Corp. v.

Guetschow, 869 F.2d 1298, 1306 (9 Cir. 1989). The imposition of th

sanctions under § 1927 requires a finding of bad faith; an

attorney’s bad faith is assessed under a subjective standard,

pursuant to which either knowing or reckless conduct is

sufficient. Pacific Harbor Capital, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines,

210 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9 Cir. 2000). An attorney subject to th

sanctions pursuant to § 1927 is entitled to notice and an

opportunity to be heard by way of briefing, but no oral or

evidentiary hearing is required. Pacific Harbor Capital, Inc. v.

Carnival Air Lines, 210 F.3d at 1118.

IV. Disposition

Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that 

1) Plaintiff’s application to file late opposition to the

motion to strike IS GRANTED; and

2) Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s opening brief IS

DENIED; and

Case 2:09-cv-00804-KJM Document 22 Filed 07/08/08 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

3) Plaintiff IS DIRECTED to file no later than fifteen days

after the date of service of this order a supplemental summary of

the relevant medical evidence and testimony, which shall be

considered to be part of the opening brief; and

4) Defendant IS DIRECTED to file Defendant’s opposing brief

no later than thirty days after the date of service of

Plaintiff’s supplemental summary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00804-KJM Document 22 Filed 07/08/08 Page 6 of 6