Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_18-cv-08341/USCOURTS-azd-3_18-cv-08341-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

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

Brian Joseph Driscoll,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration,

Defendant.

No. CV-18-08341-PCT-JJT

ORDER 

At issue is Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice and 

Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Reply (Doc. 52). Plaintiff did not file a Response. For the 

following reasons, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion.

On December 23, 2019, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s request to exceed the 

page limit of his Reply Brief. (Doc. 46.) Plaintiff had requested an excess of 15 pages; the 

Court granted him an additional four. The Order stated, “Plaintiff’s Reply Brief shall be no 

more than 15 pages double-spaced.” (Doc. 46 at 2 (emphasis in original).) Plaintiff filed 

his Reply in accordance with the page limit ordered. (Doc. 47.) However, one week later, 

Plaintiff filed a second Reply—this time 30 pages and much of it single spaced—without 

leave of the Court. (Doc. 49.) Plaintiff is not entitled to two Reply Briefs. He is expected 

to follow the Local Rules just like every other litigant in this Court. The Court has already 

afforded him leniency by allowing him to re-file his Opening Brief after the deadline and 

by permitting him to exceed the page limit allotted for a Reply Brief by the Local Rules.

(See Docs. 38 & 46.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s second Reply is stricken. 

Case 3:18-cv-08341-JJT Document 53 Filed 03/09/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

In addition to filing a second Reply, Plaintiff filed another document titled Judicial 

Notice of Plaintiff’s Exhibits 91 and Resubmitting Original Exhibit #89, #90, #91 and #94. 

(Doc. 48.) Plaintiff did not move the Court to take judicial notice of these documents or 

present argument as to why they are of the type a court can judicially notice. The documents 

appear to be (1) a May 2019 letter from the Social Security Administration apologizing for 

a delay in responding to an inquiry; (2) an April 2019 letter from the Administration 

denying a second request for Social Security disability benefits; (3) Plaintiff’s September 

2019 appeal of that denial; and (4) a November 2019 request Plaintiff submitted to the 

Administration pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

1

A court “may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because 

it: (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be 

accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 

questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The third and fourth documents—Plaintiff’s letters to 

the Administration—do not consist of facts generally known to the Court or facts whose 

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. The Court therefore declines to take judicial 

notice of Plaintiff’s letters to the Administration. 

The first and second documents—the Administration’s letters to Plaintiff—may be

a closer call, but Plaintiff has not supplied any cases in which a court takes judicial notice 

of analogous documents or facts therein, and the Court has not found any in its own 

research. Judicially noticed facts generally consist of matters of public record, such as prior 

court proceedings, e.g., Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1198 (9th Cir. 1988); 

government publications from an agency’s website, e.g., Cactus Corner, LLC v. U.S. Dep’t 

of Agric., 346 F. Supp. 2d 1075, 1100 (E.D. Cal. 2004), aff’d, 450 F.3d 428 (9th Cir. 2006); 

administrative agencies’ handbooks, e.g., Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1377 (9th Cir.

1994); or city ordinances, e.g., Toney v. Burris, 829 F.2d 622, 626–27 (7th Cir. 1987). It is 

1 Defendant asserts that the Court already denied Plaintiff’s request for judicial 

notice of the first item, the May 2019 letter. The Court did not specifically do so, but instead 

denied Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of charts that he made summarizing his medical 

records and “rebutting” portions of the ALJ opinion. (See Doc. 46 at 2.) Buried at the 

bottom of those charts was the May 2019 letter, which the Court did not include in its ruling 

at Doc. 46.

Case 3:18-cv-08341-JJT Document 53 Filed 03/09/20 Page 2 of 3
- 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

not clear that letters from an agency to an individual are matters of public record, and they 

do not otherwise fit into any of the above types of documents. Further, Plaintiff does not 

explain which facts from the letters he wishes the Court to take judicial notice of. 

Finally, this Court’s duty is to determine if the ALJ’s decision below is supported 

by substantial evidence and free of legal error. In reviewing his or her decision, the Court 

is confined to the administrative record before it. See Brewes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. 

Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1163 (9th Cir. 2012). Documents and correspondence between the 

parties several years after the ALJ’s decision—one apologizing for a delay and one that 

appears to be related to a separate claim for disability—are irrelevant to whether the

decision, at the time it was made, was supported by substantial evidence in the record. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion to Strike 

(Doc. 52). Plaintiff’s second Reply (Doc. 49) is stricken. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of the 

documents filed at Doc. 48.

Dated this 9th day of March, 2020.

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-08341-JJT Document 53 Filed 03/09/20 Page 3 of 3