Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01439/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01439-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN L. RANDALL,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-1439

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST

FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE BRIEF NUNC

PRO TUNC

Docket Nos. 16, 19

Plaintiff's reply brief in this matter was to be filed on or before May 24, 2010. Plaintiff did

not file his brief until May 26, 2010. Contemporaneously with his reply brief, Plaintiff filed a

request for leave to file the brief after the deadline. Plaintiff's filing was directed to Magistrate Judge

Gary S. Austin. Plaintiff requests leave to file his "opening brief late." On May 27, 2010, the Court

Clerk's office docketed a Notice requiring that a proposed order be sent to Magistrate Judge Sheila

K. Oberto with regard to Plaintiff's request to file his brief beyond the deadline, as this case was

reassigned to Judge Oberto on April 7, 2010. The order of reassignment of the case to Judge Oberto

is Docket No. 13. 

On June 2, 2010, Plaintiff's counsel re-filed his request for leave to file a brief beyond the

deadline. Once again, Plaintiff requests to file his "opening brief late." Plaintiff's opening brief was

filed on April 8, 2010. Defendant’s response was filed on May 7, 2010. The Court presumes that

1

Case 1:09-cv-01439-SKO Document 20 Filed 06/09/10 Page 1 of 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

Plaintiff is actually requesting to file his reply brief past the deadline. The Court encourages and

expects counsel to review the docket and the substance of any documents he files, as this assists the

Court in undertaking its review of the matter. 

Accordingly, IT IS SO ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to file a reply brief past the

deadline is GRANTED nunc pro tunc, and plaintiff’s reply shall be deemed filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01439-SKO Document 20 Filed 06/09/10 Page 2 of 2