Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01753/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01753-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

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

WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Terry Payne, ))

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of )

Social Security, ))

Defendant. ) )

CV-08-1753-LOA

ORDER

 

This case arises on yet another request by the Commissioner to file an extension to

file his answering brief to Plaintiff’s opening brief, erroneously referred to as a motion for

summary judgment. (docket # 23) The Commissioner represents that the Commissioner’s lawyer

“originally assigned to this case is out of the office on extended leave [and that] new counsel

was out of the office for the first two weeks of September and was out again in October for

illness and for work related travel.” (Id. at 1) The Motion indicates it is unopposed by

Plaintiff’s counsel.

A review of the file indicates this federal action began over a year ago with the

filing of Plaintiff’s Complaint, appealing the final decision of the Commissioner of Social

Security which denied Plaintiff’s claim for benefits under Title II and Title XVI of the Social

Security Act. (docket # 1) Despite the deadlines established in the October 10, 2008 Scheduling

Order, there have been two extensions requested and granted, one to each side. (docket # 12, #

21) The Commissioner now seeks its second extension to file a response to Plaintiff’s opening

brief. (docket # 23)

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(1) authorizes that various “categories of

Case 2:08-cv-01753-LOA Document 24 Filed 10/19/09 Page 1 of 3
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

actions [may be] exempted by local rule” from the preparation of a Rule 26(f) report and 

scheduling conference. Rule 16(b)(1), FED.R.CIV.P. The District of Arizona’s Local Rule

(LRCiv) 16.2 implicitly exempts Social Security cases from Rule 16’s case management

requirements by establishing an expedited track for these particular cases. Instead, LRCiv 16.1

addresses the procedure to be followed in Social Security cases, mandating “the parties must

observe the following briefing procedures, rather than filing motions/cross-motions for summary

judgment:” a) within sixty (60) days after the answer is filed, Plaintiff must file an opening brief;

b) Defendant must file an answering brief within thirty (30) days after service of Plaintiff’s

opening brief; and c) Plaintiff may file a reply brief within fifteen (15) days after service of

Defendant’s brief. LRCiv 16.1(a)-(c).

Local rules are “laws of the United States,” United States v. Hvass, 355 U.S. 570,

575 (1958), “have the force of law[,] are binding upon the parties and upon the court, and a

departure from local rules that affects substantial rights requires reversal.” Professional

Programs Group v. Department of Commerce, 29 F.3d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (“CJRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 471 et seq., requires

the early and on-going judicial management of the pretrial process. Under the CJRA mandate,

“[f]ederal trial courts are now required, by statute, to implement techniques and strategies

designed to dispose of cases in an efficient and inexpensive manner.” See, Schwarzkopf

Technologies Corp. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 142 F.R.D. 420, 423 (D. Del. 1992). Although

there will be no trial in this Social Security appeal, federal judges “are subject to the injunction

of Rule 1 [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] that [these Rules] ‘be construed to secure the

just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.’” Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153,

177, (1979) (emphasis added). The parties’ failure to timely comply with the Court’s October

10, 2009 scheduling order and LRCiv 16.1(a)-(c) is frustrating the speedy resolution of this case.

 The Court will reluctantly grant the Commissioner’s motion. Counsel are

forewarned that no further extensions will be granted in this case and counsel shall comply with

this order and the time to file a Reply brief set forth in LRCiv 16.1(c).

Case 2:08-cv-01753-LOA Document 24 Filed 10/19/09 Page 2 of 3
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 Commissioner’s counsel is further informed that John J. Tuchi is no longer the United States

Attorney for the District of Arizona. The new United States Attorney is Dennis K. Burke.

3

IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion for

Enlargement of Time Within Which to File a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment (Second Request), docket #23, is GRANTED. The Commissioner shall file his

answering brief on or before November 13, 2009. Absent good cause shown, the failure to

timely comply with this briefing schedule may result in a summary adverse ruling on the motion

or no consideration given by the Court to an untimely answering or reply brief.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Commissioner’s counsel shall use proper

capitalization in all future captions as mandated by LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) or the Commissioner’s

answering brief (second notice) may be stricken.1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall hereinafter comply with the

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, as amended on

December 1, 2008. The District’s Rules of Practice may be found on the District Court’s

internet web page at www.azd.uscourts.gov/. All other rules may be found at

www.uscourts.gov/rules/. 

DATED this 16th day of October, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01753-LOA Document 24 Filed 10/19/09 Page 3 of 3