UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 21, 2012
NORA ELIZABETH DIAZ,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER RE COMPLIANCE WITH SCHEDULING ORDER
On April 26, 2012, the Court issued a Scheduling Order requiring that, within 35 days after service of Plaintiff's confidential letter brief, Defendant was to serve a responsive confidential letter brief on Plaintiff. (Doc. 5, ¶ 4.) On May 11, 2012, the Court issued a minute order expressly notifying the parties that the Scheduling Order required counsel to file a separate proof of service with the Court reflecting the date that a party's confidential letter brief was served on the opposing party. (Doc. 6.)
Plaintiff served the confidential letter brief on Defendant on October 3, 2012, and filed a certificate of service with the Court. (Doc. 10 [certificate of service].) Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, Defendant was required to serve a responsive confidential letter brief on Plaintiff within 35 days after service of Plaintiff's confidential letter brief -- i.e., November 7, 2012. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party is entitled to an additional three (3) days to act when service of a document triggering a response deadline is made either by mail or by electronic means. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), (E); 6(d). Thus, Defendant was required to serve a responsive confidential letter brief on Plaintiff no later than November 13, 2012. Defendant has failed to file a proof of service indicating when the responsive confidential letter brief was served.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than November 27, 2012, Defendant shall either:
1. File a proof of service indicating when service of the responsive confidential letter brief was completed; or
2. File a statement regarding the status of service of the responsive confidential letter brief and how any failure to timely serve the brief has affected the parties' schedule in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.