Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01817/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01817-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONG VUE, ) 1:09cv1817 GSA

)

) ORDER DISCHARGING 

) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff, ) (Document 13)

)

) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

) REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

 vs. ) FILE AN OPENING BRIEF

)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, )

)

) 

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

On October 14, 2009, Plaintiff filed the present action for judicial review of the denial of her

Social Security benefits. On June 25, 2010, the Court issued an order to show cause why sanctions

should not be imposed for Plaintiff’s failure to file an opening brief by May 31, 2010.

On June 25, 2010, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause and requested an

extension until August 25, 2010, to file her opening brief. In the response, Plaintiff’s counsel, Ms.

Haley, explained that she mistakenly sent the confidential letter brief to the Defendant to the wrong

e-mail address on two occasions, and that she had marked the matter completed. As a result, the item

fell out of her calendering system. She only realized the error when she received the OSC. Both

parties have stipulated that Defendant may have an additional thirty days to review the confidential

letter brief and that Plaintiff be permitted to file her opening brief thirty days thereafter.

1

Case 1:09-cv-01817-GSA Document 16 Filed 06/29/10 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

Based on the foregoing, it appears that Plaintiff’s failure to file an opening brief was

inadvertent. However, Ms. Haley is advised that this Court is becoming increasingly concerned with

her inability to timely file opening briefs in numerous cases. While the Court will discharge the

OSC in this instance given the stipulation of the parties, Plaintiff’s counsel is warned that future

failures to timely file an opening brief or timely request an extension of time will be looked upon

with disfavor and may result in sanctions. Accordingly, the order to show cause is hereby 1

DISCHARGED. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is GRANTED. Defendant shall respond

to Plaintiff’s confidential letter brief no later than July 25, 2010. Plaintiff shall file her opening brief

no later than August 25, 2010. All other deadlines outlined in this Court’s scheduling order dated

October 25, 2009, remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

See Harper v. Astrue, 09-cv-1211-SKO in which United States Magistrate Judge Sheila Oberto 1

outlines several cases involving counsel’s failure to timely file opening briefs. (Doc. 20). 

2

Case 1:09-cv-01817-GSA Document 16 Filed 06/29/10 Page 2 of 2