Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04932/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04932-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALENA M. TAVERNITI and 

MARAINA ARIK,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner,

Social Security Administration

Defendant. /

No. C-04-04932 SBA (EDL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO COMPEL ARIK

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

Finding this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument, the Court took Plaintiffs’

Motion for an Order Compelling Defendant to Produce the Complete Transcript of the Arik

Administrative Record (“Motion to Compel”) under submission and vacated the hearing scheduled

for September 12, 2006. 

In their Complaint, Plaintiffs only sought to compel Defendant Social Security

Administration to hold 91-5p hearings. See Docket No. 1. Since the filing of the Complaint,

Defendant granted Plaintiff Arik a 91-5p hearing. See Motion to Compel at 6. Arik’s Complaint

thus appears to be moot. Recognizing this problem, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint

concurrently with her Reply in support of the Motion to Compel. However, because Defendant filed

a motion to dismiss on March 1, 2005 (Docket No. 9), Plaintiff may only file an amended complaint

by stipulation of the parties or by leave of Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). As far as the Court can

determine from reviewing the docket, Plaintiff obtained neither a stipulation from Defendant nor

leave of Court, so the original Complaint remains the operative Complaint. Because the Motion to

Compel appears to be moot, it is hereby DENIED.

Case 4:04-cv-04932-SBA Document 48 Filed 09/08/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Court notes that Social Security cases are governed by this District’s Procedural Order

for Social Security Review Actions, which does not require a defendant to file the administrative

record until it answers the complaint. See Docket No. 2; see also Civ. L.R. 16-5. At this point, the

Court does not address whether Plaintiffs might be entitled to any discovery based on their

allegations of a constitutional violation. Nor does the Court reach any issue pertaining to Plaintiff

Taverniti’s records, as these records was not addressed by Plaintiffs in their moving papers. Finally,

the Court notes that any questions regarding jurisdiction must be directed to the District Court,

rather than to the discovery judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-04932-SBA Document 48 Filed 09/08/06 Page 2 of 2