Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00545/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00545-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:402 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

JANE BEJERANO GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00545-SAB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE 

FOR LATE FILING OF DEFENDANT’S 

RESPONSIVE BRIEF 

(ECF No. 16)

Plaintiff Jane Garcia (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of a final decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denying an application for 

disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. On January 8, 2020, the parties filed a 

stipulated request for an extension of time for Defendant to file a responsive brief. (ECF No. 

14.) The stipulation was not filed until after the deadline for Defendant to file the responsive 

brief had expired. On January 8, 2020, the Court denied the stipulated request because it did not 

contain a statement describing whether good cause existed for filing the request after the 

deadline. (ECF No. 15.) In the order, the Court emphasized that recently in two other matters, 

although involving different counsel, Defendant had belatedly filed similar requests for 

extensions of briefing, and the Court previously admonished Defendant for waiting until after the 

deadline had expired before filing the requests for extensions in those matters. (Id.)

On January 13, 2020, in response to the Court’s denial of the stipulated request, 

Case 1:19-cv-00545-SAB Document 17 Filed 01/14/20 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

Defendant filed a motion for leave for late filing, and a renewed request for an extension of time 

to file Defendant’s responsive brief. (Mot. Leave Late Filing Def.’s Resp. Br. (“Mot.”), ECF 

No. 16.) The motion was accompanied by a declaration of Deborah Lee Stachel (Stachel Decl., 

ECF No. 16-1), a declaration of Sharon Lahey (Lahey Decl., ECF No. 16-2), and a declaration of 

Oscar Gonzalez de Llano (Gonzalez Decl., ECF No. 16-3). Defendant moves for leave to file the 

responsive brief and seeks an extension until January 31, 2020 to do so. (Mot. 1.) Plaintiff does 

not oppose the motion. (Id.) 

Turning to the contents of the motion, counsel Sharon Lahey affirms that she is a Special 

Assistant Attorney and attorney of record in this case. (Mot. 2; Lahey Decl. ¶ 2.) Ms. Lahey 

notes that Plaintiff’s opening brief was filed on December 2, 2019, one week earlier than the 

deadline of December 9, 2019. (Mot. 2.) Because of Ms. Lahey’s health issues and an unusually 

heavy briefing schedule, her office assigned Oscar Gonzalez de Llano to assist with case on 

December 10, 2019. (Id.; Lahey Decl. ¶ 3; Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 2.) At the time, Ms. Lahey had not 

updated the calendar with the revised briefing schedule to reflect Plaintiff’s early filing, and 

inadvertently failed to do so later. (Mot. 2.) Relying on the calendar, Mr. Gonzalez de Llano 

incorrectly believed January 8, 2020 to be the deadline rather than January 2, 2020. (Id.; Lahey 

Decl. ¶ 4; Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 3.) Mr. Gonzalez de Llano initially believed he could complete the 

brief by the assumed deadline of January 8, 2020, however, on January 6, 2020, Mr. Gonzalez de 

Llano realized that due to competing workloads and deadlines, holidays, and scheduled leave, he 

had underestimated the time required. (Mot. 2; Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 4.) Mr. Gonzalez de Llano

reached out to Plaintiff to obtain a stipulation for an extension of less than thirty days, and 

Plaintiff’s counsel agreed on January 7, 2020. (Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 5.) Mr. Gonzalez de Llano did 

not realize at the time that the deadline had advanced, and had he realized so, he would have 

undertaken the steps to request an extension much earlier to comply with the scheduling order. 

(Id. ¶ 6.) 

Ms. Lahey, as the attorney of record, offers an apology to the Court on her and Mr. 

Gonzalez de Llano’s behalf, and affirms her intention to meet all future obligations with the 

Court. (Mot. 2-3; Lahey Decl. ¶¶ 4-5; Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 8.) Ms. Stachel also highlights that the 

Case 1:19-cv-00545-SAB Document 17 Filed 01/14/20 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

3

Defendant implemented a “smart hiring” program in July 2019, and at the national and regional 

levels, the Office of the General Counsel has not been able to replace most attorneys who retired 

or took new positions during the fiscal year 2019 and to date, resulting in heavy caseloads. 

(Stachel Decl. ¶ 3.) Ms. Stachel affirms her office is taking necessary action to correct 

calendaring errors, and thanks the Court for the “moderation shown in this case and others like it, 

and for the guidance the Court sought to provide my staff through these orders.” (Stachel Decl. 

¶¶ 3, 4, 6.) 

The Court accepts Defendant’s explanations for the late-filed stipulation and appreciates 

the affirmation that counsel intends to meet all future obligations to this Court. Given the 

minimal delay and the fact that Plaintiff does not oppose this motion, the Court shall grant the 

motion for leave to file a responsive brief and grant the request for an extension of the briefing 

deadline. However, the Court is mindful of staffing requirements which also affect the judiciary. 

These time consuming orders addressing matters involving a lack of diligence takes time away 

from the Court addressing substantive matters important to all parties. The Court’s lecture series 

will soon end and rights of a party may be affected if that party is not diligent. The prudent 

course here by counsel, point these facts out when requesting the initial extension- Save time for 

all. Here endeth the lesson. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion for leave for late filing (ECF No. 16), is GRANTED; 

2. Defendant’s responsive brief shall be filed on or before January 31, 2020; and 

3. Plaintiff’s reply brief, if any, shall be filed on or before February 17, 2020. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00545-SAB Document 17 Filed 01/14/20 Page 3 of 3