Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04932/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04932-1/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 DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLETE

TRANSCRIPT OF ADMINISTRATIVE

RECORD

Finding this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument, the Court took Plaintiffs’

Motion for an Order Compelling Defendant to Produce the Complete Transcript of the

Administrative Record (“Motion to Compel”) under submission and vacated the hearing scheduled

for October 4, 2005. 

Under the terms of the November 19, 2004 Procedural Order for Social Security Review

Actions filed in this case, Defendant need not file the complete administrative record until she files

an answer. Instead of filing an answer, on March 1, 2005, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based

on Plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust their administrative remedies and, in the alternative, their failure to

state a claim. See Motion to Compel at 2. Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Compel five months after

filing their opposition to the motion to dismiss, arguing that they needed the complete administrative

record to oppose the motion to dismiss and establish subject matter jurisdiction. Id.

Plaintiffs’ motion is not well taken: “Discovery is not appropriate when the Court’s

jurisdiction is review of the administrative record only.... this Court is limited in its review to only

those matters before the Administrative Law Judge and Appeals Council.” McCarty v. Barnhart,

Case 4:04-cv-04932-SBA Document 22 Filed 10/03/05 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

No. C-04-5060 MHP (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2005). Under the Court’s rules, filing of the complete

administrative record would appear to be premature. Although the Court is unsure whether or how

documents in the administrative record might bear on the issue of exhaustion of administrative

remedies that underlies Defendant’s motion to dismiss, if at all, Plaintiffs seem to indicate in their

Motion to Compel that they do. See Reply in support of Motion to Compel at 8 (“Defendant’s trap

is to get the Court to make a determination solely on the proffered facts without bringing the entire

record for review”). To 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. If Defendant refuses, Plaintiffs may request an order from the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2005 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-04932-SBA Document 22 Filed 10/03/05 Page 2 of 2