Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04932/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04932-2/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 of Social Security,

Defendant. /

No. C-04-04932 SBA (EDL)

ORDER GRANTING IN LIMITED PART

ONLY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL TRANSCRIPT OF

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

On October 3, 2005, this Court denied Plaintiffs’ earlier Motion for an Order Compelling

Defendant to Produce the Complete Transcript of the Administrative Record, but ordered that 

[t]o the extent that Plaintiffs, in good faith, seek to bring before the Court certain

documents that they believe are necessary to evaluate their exhaustion of

administrative remedies (but not the merits of the Administrative Law Judge’s

decision to deny Plaintiff Taverniti’s request for a 91-5p hearing, nor the existence of

Plaintiffs’ alleged mental impairment), Plaintiffs may request from Defendant that

she file particular documents, identifying them with as much specificity as possible. 

Plaintiff Taverniti then requested a number of specific categories of documents from her

Administrative Record, including “[a]ll Agency notices and/or denials of claims for benefits

including computer records of same dated prior to July 1, 1991.” Motion at 2. When Defendant

failed to produced the requested documents, Plaintiff moved to compel a second time. In its

Opposition, Defendant did not object to producing the documents, but requested additional time to

ascertain whether the documents existed. During the hearing, Defendant’s counsel stated that

Defendant had found the responsive documents and already had produced them to Plaintiff’s

counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed that he had received a number of documents, but remained 

Case 4:04-cv-04932-SBA Document 32 Filed 02/02/06 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

unsatisfied with the production because it did not include certain “Agency notices” of which he was

aware. After explaining that Defendant did not construe Plaintiff’s request to encompass any notices

that only partially denied disability benefits, Defendant reiterated that it did not object to producing

these documents. Because Defendant does not object to producing them, the Court GRANTS IN

LIMITED PART Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and orders that Defendant produce to Plaintiff within

thirty days all partial denials dated prior to July 1, 1991 in Plaintiff Taverniti’s Administrative

Record. 

While it is possible that other documents Plaintiff has requested might be relevant to the

exhaustion of administrative remedies, Plaintiff failed to explain how the documents were necessary

to evaluate this issue. Accordingly, the Court denies the remainder of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. 

Defendant also pointed out that Plaintiff may request her entire file under the Privacy Act. Finally,

to the extent that Plaintiff is concerned about authentication of the documents already in her

possession, the parties should be able to reach a stipulation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-04932-SBA Document 32 Filed 02/02/06 Page 2 of 2