Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05099/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05099-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALAN BRINKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-05099-SI 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO COMPEL AND SETTING 

DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 30

Plaintiff Alan Brinker has filed an administrative motion to compel production of 

documents, fix and complete the record, and produce an accounting. Dkt. No. 30. Plaintiff is 

representing himself pro se in this Social Security appeal. The Court previously ruled on several of 

plaintiff’s other administrative motions, but deferred ruling on this motion and ordered that the 

defendant file a response. Dkt. No. 32. 

Plaintiff states that the administrative record in this case is not complete, that Social Security 

has failed to complete the record, and that Social Security has failed and refused to give him a usable 

copy of the record. In her opposition, defendant states that she has certified that the administrative 

records filed at Docket Numbers 18 and 21 “constitute full and accurate transcripts of the entire 

record of proceedings relating to the administrative law judge decision dated March 2, 2015 at issue 

in the above-captioned matter[.]” Dkt. No. 33 at 1. Defendant further states that she has “mailed 

hard copies of the administrative record to Plaintiff on two separate occasions and engaged in several 

telephone conversations and e-mail communications with Plaintiff to address his argument that the 

administrative record is incomplete.” Id. at 2. Defendant also states that her counsel has “attempted 

to ascertain what documents Plaintiff believed were missing” but that “Plaintiff would not identify 

Case 3:18-cv-05099-SI Document 36 Filed 06/14/19 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

the documents . . . and it was unclear what specific documents he asserted were missing from the 

record.” Id. Plaintiff then filed a “sur reply” presenting a “general list of categories of documents 

not provided.” Dkt. No. 35. Plaintiff refers to a prior case involving a question of whether plaintiff 

worked for nine months or ten. Id. at 1. The sur reply also refers to hearings on the repayment issue 

and money that was taken from his Social Security checks. 

After reviewing the papers filed in this case, as well as the administrative record produced 

to date, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents. In the March 2, 

2015 Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) decision that appears to be the subject of this appeal, the 

only issue was whether the agency correctly calculated the onset date for plaintiff’s entitlement to 

disability insurance benefits. See Dkt. No. 21. In that decision, the ALJ noted that plaintiff “took 

the opportunity . . . to complain about a prior overpayment determination in 2008 that is not currently 

an issue before the undersigned for adjudication.” Id. at 709. The ALJ also stated that plaintiff “has 

visited the hearing office on numerous occasions to see his file and has complained about the 

contends [sic] of his file. His complaints have varied from there being no evidence in his file to the 

field office refusing to submit sufficient evidence and in some instances, withholding evidence. His 

file is now swollen with pages submitted and apparently resubmitted by the claimant through the 

years, going back almost two decades, some of which he contended during his hearing, that he had 

never seen. Most of these records have nothing to do with the sole issue at hand.” Id. at 710-11.

“[T]he District Court may not consider evidence outside of the administrative record in 

reviewing a claim for benefits.[] [This] court acts as an appellate court, reviewing a lower tribunal's 

decision. It does not act as a trier of fact, which can acquire evidence and make factual 

determinations.” See Social Security Disability Law & Procedure in Federal Court § 9:58. In other 

words, the role of this Court is to review the final decision of the Social Security Administration. 

Plaintiff is entitled to receive a copy of the documents on which the agency relied in rendering its 

decision. But what plaintiff instead seeks are numerous documents that do not appear to be germane 

to the specific appeal on this Court’s docket. For this reason, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion 

Case 3:18-cv-05099-SI Document 36 Filed 06/14/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

to compel production of documents.1

The Court will also not order that defendant produce another set of the administrative record 

for plaintiff because defendant has apparently already done so two times, and plaintiff is an ECF 

filer, meaning he may access an electronic version of the record online. See Dkt. Nos. 18, 21.

Plaintiff has asked for a 120-day extension of the deadline to file his motion for summary 

judgment, which was due on May 28, 2019. Dkt. No. 31. In the Court’s most recent order, see Dkt. 

No. 32, the Court noted that it had already granted plaintiff a 90-day extension and at that time 

cautioned that this was a significant extension of time and that the Court would not be inclined to 

grant further extensions in this case. This case has been pending since August 2018 and the Court 

does not yet have a motion from plaintiff explaining what of the agency’s final decision he is 

challenging. 

The Court will grant plaintiff one further extension of 45 days to file his motion for summary 

judgment. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is now due July 29, 2019. Defendant’s 

opposition and cross-motion is due August 26, 2019. Plaintiff’s optional reply brief is due 

September 9, 2019. The Court is unlikely to grant further extensions. If plaintiff does not file 

his motion for summary judgment by the deadline, he risks having his case dismissed for failure to 

prosecute. 

The Court reminds plaintiff that free legal information is available by phone appointment 

from the Legal Help Center at 415-782-8982.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2019

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

 

1

If upon review of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the accompanying 

administrative record, it appears to the Court that germane documents are missing from the record, 

the Court will take corrective action at that time. However, the Court cannot undertake its review 

of the substance of plaintiff’s appeal until plaintiff has filed his motion for summary judgment to 

make clear exactly what it is that he is appealing.

Case 3:18-cv-05099-SI Document 36 Filed 06/14/19 Page 3 of 3