Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01263/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01263-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Melissa Ann Hopson
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Melissa Hopson (“Plaintiff”) filed an opening brief in this action on April 4, 2014, 2014 (Doc. 

13), to which Caroling Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) filed a 

responsive brief on May 1, 2014. (Doc. 14.) On May 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a brief in reply to the 

Commissioner’s opposition. (Doc. 15.) 

Importantly, the Scheduling Order issued by the Court on August 14, 2013 provided a briefing 

schedule for the parties in this action. (Doc. 6-1.) In relevant part, the Scheduling Order states:

Respondent’s responsive brief shall be filed with the court and served on 

appellant within thirty (30) days after service of appellant’s opening brief.

Appellant’s reply brief shall be filed with the court and served on respondent 

within fifteen (15) days after service of respondent's brief.

(Id. at 3.) Consequently, any reply was to be filed no later than fifteen days after the Commissioner 

filed a responsive brief on May 1, 2014. Although the Scheduling Order explains that an extension of 

MELISSA ANN HOPSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01263 - JLT 

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF 

AS UNTIMELY

Case 1:13-cv-01263-JLT Document 16 Filed 05/20/14 Page 1 of 2
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

time may be granted by stipulation of the parties or upon written motion (Doc. 6-1 at 4), Plaintiff did 

not file a stipulation or seek leave of the Court to file an untimely reply. 

The Ninth Circuit has explained that “[a] scheduling order ‘is not a frivolous piece of paper, 

idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.’” Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108 

F.R.D. 138, 141 (D. Maine 1985)). Once entered by the court, a scheduling order “controls the course 

of the action unless the court modifies it,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(d), and good cause must be shown for 

modification. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). Here, Plaintiff has not provided a reason for the delay, and has 

not demonstrated good cause for modification of the Court’s Scheduling Order. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s reply brief (Doc. 15) is STRICKEN 

as untimely and in violation of the Court’s Scheduling Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01263-JLT Document 16 Filed 05/20/14 Page 2 of 2