Opinion
Case No. 1:15-cv-00753-SAB
12-18-2015
RUBEN HOLGUIN, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL TO APPEAR ON JANUARY 13, 2016 TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT'S SCHEDULING ORDER
On May 17, 2015, Plaintiff Ruben Holguin filed this action challenging the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for benefits. On May 19, 2015, the scheduling order issued which set forth the briefing schedule in this action. Pursuant to the May 19, 2015 scheduling order, Plaintiff was to serve a letter brief outlining the reasons that he thinks that remand is appropriate within thirty days after service of the administrative record. (Scheduling Order ¶ 3, ECF No. 2.) The Commissioner then had thirty five days to serve a response to the letter brief. (Id. at ¶ 4.) "In the event [the Commissioner did] not agree to a remand, within thirty (30) days of service of respondent's response, appellant shall file and serve an opening brief with the court and on respondent." (Id. at ¶ 6.)
Accordingly to the certificate of service filed by the Commissioner, Plaintiff was served with Defendant's response to the letter brief on September 18, 2015. (ECF No. 10.) Therefore, Plaintiff's opening brief was to be filed by October 23, 2015. As of this date, Plaintiff has not filed an opening brief in compliance with the May 19, 2015 scheduling order.
The Court notes that this is not the first time that it has had to address counsel's failure to comply with scheduling orders that have been issued. See Devore v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:14-cv-00663-SAB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2015) (order to show cause for failure to file opening brief); Kneeland v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:13-cv-01774-SAB (E.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2014) (same); Alanis v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:13-cv-01306-SAB (E.D. Cal. May 20, 2014) (same); Walters v. Comm. of Soc. Sec., No. 1:14-cv-00827-SAB (E.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2014) (directing Plaintiff to file notice of status of service); Hernandez v. Comm. Soc. Sec., No. 1:15-cv-01684-SAB (same); see also Welein v. Colvin, No. 1:14-cv-01383-JLT (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2015) (order to show cause for failure to file opening brief); Ramirez v. Colvin, No. 1:14-cv-01229-JLT (E.D. Cal. May 12, 2015) (same); Maldonado v. Colvin, No. 1:14-cv-00627-JLT (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2014) (same); Zaharides v. Colvin, No. 1:14-cv-00283-JLT (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2014) (same); Mcintire v. Colvin, No. 1:14-cv-00036-SKO (E.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2014) (same); Jackson v. Comm. of Soc. Sec., No. 1:13-cv-01493-JLT (E.D. Cal. May 23, 2014) (granting request to file late opening brief); Leija v. Comm. of Soc. Sec., No. 1:13-cv-01575-GSA (E.D. Cal. July 3, 2014) (same); Swain v. Comm. Soc. Sec., No. 2:14-cv-1351-KJN (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) (order to show cause for tardy filing of opening brief).
The Court is aware of the personal issues that counsel has been facing and does not mean to diminish the seriousness of the reasons counsel provides for these failures to comply. However, the lack of compliance with the Court's scheduling order has caused additional work for the Court in monitoring and addressing the lapses in these actions. This failure to comply with the scheduling orders has been on-going and it does not appear that counsel has devised a system to remedy the issue. For this reason, the Court shall require Plaintiff's counsel to appear to show cause why sanctions should not issue for the failure to comply with the scheduling order in this action.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's counsel shall appear on January 13, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9
to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for the failure to comply with the scheduling order;IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 18 , 2015
2. Counsel shall respond in writing to this order on or before January 6, 2016;
3. The Court shall allow counsel to appear telephonically for the hearing if prior arrangements are made with the Courtroom Deputy; and
4. Failure to comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions.
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE