Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02872/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02872-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:416 Denial of 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

CHARLES D. DUNHAM, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 

) No. CIV 04-2872 PHX RCB

vs. ) 

) O R D E R

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social )

Security )

)

Defendant. ) )

Currently pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motion for

summary judgment (doc. # 10), Defendant's cross-motion for summary

judgment (doc. # 15), and Plaintiff's motion to vacate Defendant's

response to his motion for summary judgment (doc. # 18). This

order addresses Plaintiff's motion to vacate (doc. # 18), and

provides the parties with time for further briefing, if desired, on

their underlying motions for summary judgment.

By order entered March 31, 2006, the Court granted Defendant's

request for an extension of time, allowing Defendant until Friday,

April 7, 2006 within which to respond to Plaintiff's motion. Order 

Case 2:04-cv-02872-RCB Document 20 Filed 09/01/06 Page 1 of 4
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

 The Court notes that Plaintiff has not asked the Court to

vacate Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. See Mot. (doc.

# 18). In any event, Defendant's motion is timely, and such a

- 2 -

(doc. # 13). Because Defendant's response (doc. # 14) was not

filed until Monday, April 10, 2006, Plaintiff asks the Court to

vacate that response, and consider his motion unopposed. Mot.

(doc. # 18). Defendant contends that the late response should be

excused on the basis of "excusable neglect" pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b). Resp. (doc. # 19). In particular,

Defendant's counsel notes that the delay of one judicial day was

attributable to a clerical error by his legal assistant, and, in

any event, would not prejudice Plaintiff due to the minimal length

of the delay. Resp. (doc. # 19) at 2.

The Court construes Defendant's response to Plaintiff's motion

to vacate (doc. # 19) as a postdeadline motion for an extension of

time pursuant to Rule 6(b)(2), and so construed, grants that motion

on the basis of excusable neglect. Having reviewed Defendant's

exhibits, the Court finds that Defendant's conduct was in good

faith, that the reason for the delay was not reasonably within

Defendant's control, and, in light of the minimal length of the

delay, that its potential effect on the judicial proceedings would

be slight at best. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assoc.

Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 386-92 (1993). Moreover, because Defendant's

cross-motion for summary judgment (doc. # 15) is properly before

the Court, and has not been responded to by Plaintiff, the Court

finds that there will be little prejudice to Plaintiff in

permitting Defendant's late response to Plaintiff's motion for

summary judgment.1

Case 2:04-cv-02872-RCB Document 20 Filed 09/01/06 Page 2 of 4
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

request to vacate would be denied on that basis. See Scheduling

Order (doc. # 4) at ¶ 2. As such, the Court observes that vacating

Defendant's response would result in the anomalous situation of the

Court having before it two competing and unopposed motions for

summary judgment. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that

adjudication of the parties' underlying motions (doc. ## 10, 15) will

benefit from denying Plaintiff's motion to vacate (doc. # 18), and

permitting further briefing by the parties, if desired, to better

develop the issues.

- 3 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to vacate

(doc. # 18) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's response to Plaintiff's

motion to vacate (doc. # 19) is construed as a postdeadline motion

for an extension of time pursuant to Rule 6(b)(2), and so

construed, is GRANTED. The time within which Defendant may respond

to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is extended, nunc pro

tunc, to and including April 10, 2006.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED allowing Plaintiff, if he desires, until

Friday, September 8, 2006 at noon to serve and file a document

which would simultaneously serve as his response to Defendant's

cross-motion for summary judgment (doc. # 15) and his reply in

support of his motion for summary judgment (doc. # 10).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED allowing Defendant to file a document

that would simultaneously serve as her response and reply to the

underlying motions for summary judgment (doc. ## 10, 15) within 3

(three) judicial days of any further briefing by Plaintiff

contemplated by this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, to the extent that the parties are at

any time satisfied with the briefing on the underlying motions for

summary judgment (doc. # 10, 15), the Court is not necessarily

inviting, and does not require, any further briefing permitted by

Case 2:04-cv-02872-RCB Document 20 Filed 09/01/06 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Defendant's counsel to deliver

a copy of this order to Plaintiff by hand-delivery or facsimile by

Friday, September 1, 2006 at noon.

DATED this 31st day of August, 2006.

Copies to plaintiff, pro se, and counsel of record

Case 2:04-cv-02872-RCB Document 20 Filed 09/01/06 Page 4 of 4