Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01687/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01687-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Steven Pierce
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN PIERCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cv-1687-BAM

ORDER SETTING SHOW CAUSE 

HEARING 

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S 

OPENING BRIEF 

(Doc. 17)

PERSONAL APPEARANCE REQUIRED

HEARING: March 3, 2016 at 2:30pm 

On January 28, 2016, this Court ordered Plaintiff Steven Pierce (“Plaintiff”) to show 

cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with 

a court order. (Doc. 15). The Court noted that on October 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed the complaint 

in this action and the Court issued a scheduling order. (Docs. 1, 6). Pursuant to the Court’s 

scheduling order, Plaintiff was required to file his opening brief on or before September 21, 

2015. Plaintiff failed to file his opening brief for over four months before filing a motion for an 

extension of time, now pending before this court. 

Instead of filing a sworn declaration in response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, 

Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time asking the Court to excuse Plaintiff’s untimely 

opening brief. In the motion, Plaintiff provides a confusing explanation as to why Plaintiff’s 

opening brief is over four months late. According to Plaintiff, it was the Commissioner—who 

Case 1:14-cv-01687-BAM Document 19 Filed 02/12/16 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

2

was admittedly nine days late in submitting her confidential response memorandum—who 

initially caused the delay. Plaintiff attached an email to his motion for extension of time which 

reveals that the Commissioner indeed submitted her response memo after the deadline but agreed 

to “stipulate to additional time on Plaintiff’s opening brief.” (Doc. 16, Attach 1). Plaintiff

explains that he was unable to submit his opening brief because Defendant’s failed to file a 

request for an extension of time with the Court. Plaintiff claims he was in a “holding pattern” 

because he “could not motion the court for an extension on defendant’s behalf but could also not 

submit the Opening Brief as it would be deemed untimely.” (Doc. 16 at 2). Plaintiff’s counsel

apologizes for failing to follow-up on Defendant’s proposed extension of time, but further 

explains that she failed to aggressively follow-up because at that time, counsel for the 

Commissioner was traveling to provide care for a terminally ill relative. 

On February 5, 2016, counsel for the Commissioner filed a response to Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Extension of time contradicting the explanation of events detailed by Plaintiff. According to 

Sharon Lehey, Assistant Regional Counsel for the United States Social Security Administration, 

Region IX, Plaintiff’s attorney contacted the Commissioner by phone on February 4, 2016—the 

due date for Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause—and claimed that she did not file her 

opening brief because she did not receive a response from the Commissioner’s office concerning 

Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time. See Declaration of Sharon Lahey (“Lahey Decl.”), 

Ex. 1 (Doc. 18-1). During their telephone conversation, Plaintiff’s counsel Kelsey Brown 

claimed that, on several occasions, she emailed Marla K. Letellier, Esq. but did not receive a 

response. The Commissioner further provides that Plaintiff’s counsel claimed she left several 

voice messages on the Commissioner’s main office phone number. Lahey Decl. ¶ 2. In a sworn 

declaration, Sharon Lehey claims that she has confirmed with her office and Marla Letellier, 

Esq., and no one from her office ever received voice messages, email or telephone 

correspondence from Ms. Brown concerning an extension of time to file Plaintiff’s opening 

brief. Lahey Decl. ¶ 3. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s allegations that 

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time contains several material misrepresentations. 

Setting aside the clear questions as to Plaintiff’s candor in this matter, a review of the 

Case 1:14-cv-01687-BAM Document 19 Filed 02/12/16 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

3

docket reveals that this is not the first lengthy delay in this case. Plaintiff’s counsel filed her first 

extension of time to file her confidential letter brief on April 30, 2015—twelve days after the 

confidential memorandum was due. Although requests for Court-approved extensions brought 

on or after the required filing date for the pleading are looked upon with disfavor, the Court 

granted Plaintiff’s belated request and extended the time to file Plaintiff’s confidential 

memorandum to May 30, 2015. L.R. 144(d); (Doc. 11). Instead of submitting her memo on or 

before May 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a second extension of time on August 18, 2015—nearly 

three months after her confidential memorandum was due—requesting that the Court deem her

confidential memorandum submitted on July 17, 2015, as timely. Again, giving Plaintiff the 

benefit of the doubt, the Court granted Plaintiff’s second extension of time, nunc pro tunc and 

modified the scheduling order accordingly. (Doc. 14). Based on the modified scheduling order, 

Defendant’s confidential memorandum was due August 24, 2015 and Plaintiff’s opening brief 

was due on September 21, 2015. Over four months after the deadline to file his opening brief 

had expired, Plaintiff again asks the Court for a late and untimely third extension of time. 

Based on the egregious nature of delay in this case, the Court will not discharge the order 

to show cause with respect to Plaintiff’s Counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to provide a 

satisfactory response to the Court’s order to show cause. Furthermore, the Defendant has 

informed the Court that Plaintiff’s response contains material misrepresentations. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s attorney shall appear in person at 2:30 p.m. on March 3, 2016. Plaintiff shall show 

cause at that time why this case should not be dismissed for a repeated failure to comply with the 

Court’s scheduling order. 

Based upon the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Court SETS a Show Cause Hearing for March 3, 2016 at 2:30 p.m. in 

Courtroom 8 (BAM) before United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe; 

2. Plaintiff’s attorney shall appear in person on March 3, 2016 at 2:30 p.m. in 

Courtroom 8 (BAM) before United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe to SHOW 

CAUSE why sanctions including dismissal should not be imposed for failing to comply with the 

Court’s scheduling order; and 

Case 1:14-cv-01687-BAM Document 19 Filed 02/12/16 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

3. Plaintiff’s Opening Brief filed at Document 17 is STRICKEN; 

4. Defendant may appear at the show cause hearing by telephone; 

5. Plaintiff is forewarned that the presence of counsel at the hearing is mandatory; 

failure to personally appear at the show cause hearing will result in sanctions including, but not 

limited to, dismissal of this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01687-BAM Document 19 Filed 02/12/16 Page 4 of 4