United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR LATE FILING OF
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSIVE BRIEF (ECF NO. 16)
Plaintiff
Jane Garcia (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review
of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner” or “Defendant”)
denying an application for disability benefits pursuant to
the Social Security Act. On January 8, 2020, the parties
filed a stipulated request for an extension of time for
Defendant to file a responsive brief. (ECF No. 14.) The
stipulation was not filed until after the deadline for
Defendant to file the responsive brief had expired. On
January 8, 2020, the Court denied the stipulated request
because it did not contain a statement describing whether
good cause existed for filing the request after the deadline.
(ECF No. 15.) In the order, the Court emphasized that
recently in two other matters, although involving different
counsel, Defendant had belatedly filed similar requests for
extensions of briefing, and the Court previously admonished
Defendant for waiting until after the deadline had expired
before filing the requests for extensions in those matters.
(Id.)
On
January 13, 2020, in response to the Court's denial of
the stipulated request, Defendant filed a motion for leave
for late filing, and a renewed request for an extension of
time to file Defendant's responsive brief. (Mot. Leave
Late Filing Def.'s Resp. Br. (“Mot.”), ECF
No. 16.) The motion was accompanied by a declaration of
Deborah Lee Stachel (Stachel Decl., ECF No. 16-1), a
declaration of Sharon Lahey (Lahey Decl., ECF No. 16-2), and
a declaration of Oscar Gonzalez de Llano (Gonzalez Decl., ECF
No. 16-3). Defendant moves for leave to file the responsive
brief and seeks an extension until January 31, 2020 to do so.
(Mot. 1.) Plaintiff does not oppose the motion.
(Id.)
Turning
to the contents of the motion, counsel Sharon Lahey affirms
that she is a Special Assistant Attorney and attorney of
record in this case. (Mot. 2; Lahey Decl. ¶ 2.) Ms.
Lahey notes that Plaintiff's opening brief was filed on
December 2, 2019, one week earlier than the deadline of
December 9, 2019. (Mot. 2.) Because of Ms. Lahey's health
issues and an unusually heavy briefing schedule, her office
assigned Oscar Gonzalez de Llano to assist with case on
December 10, 2019. (Id.; Lahey Decl. ¶ 3;
Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 2.) At the time, Ms. Lahey had not
updated the calendar with the revised briefing schedule to
reflect Plaintiff's early filing, and inadvertently
failed to do so later. (Mot. 2.) Relying on the calendar, Mr.
Gonzalez de Llano incorrectly believed January 8, 2020 to be
the deadline rather than January 2, 2020. (Id.;
Lahey Decl. ¶ 4; Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 3.) Mr. Gonzalez
de Llano initially believed he could complete the brief by
the assumed deadline of January 8, 2020, however, on January
6, 2020, Mr. Gonzalez de Llano realized that due to competing
workloads and deadlines, holidays, and scheduled leave, he
had underestimated the time required. (Mot. 2; Gonzalez Decl.
¶ 4.) Mr. Gonzalez de Llano reached out to Plaintiff to
obtain a stipulation for an extension of less than thirty
days, and Plaintiff's counsel agreed on January 7, 2020.
(Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 5.) Mr. Gonzalez de Llano did not
realize at the time that the deadline had advanced, and had
he realized so, he would have undertaken the steps to request
an extension much earlier to comply with the scheduling
order. (Id. ¶ 6.)
Ms.
Lahey, as the attorney of record, offers an apology to the
Court on her and Mr. Gonzalez de Llano's behalf, and
affirms her intention to meet all future obligations with the
Court. (Mot. 2-3; Lahey Decl. ¶¶ 4-5; Gonzalez
Decl. ¶ 8.) Ms. Stachel also highlights that the
Defendant implemented a “smart hiring” program in
July 2019, and at the national and regional levels, the
Office of the General Counsel has not been able to replace
most attorneys who retired or took new positions during the
fiscal year 2019 and to date, resulting in heavy caseloads.
(Stachel Decl. ¶ 3.) Ms. Stachel affirms her office is
taking necessary action to correct calendaring errors, and
thanks the Court for the “moderation shown in this case
and others like it, and for the guidance the Court sought to
provide my staff through these orders.” (Stachel Decl.
¶¶ 3, 4, 6.)
The
Court accepts Defendant's explanations for the late-filed
stipulation and appreciates the affirmation that counsel
intends to meet all future obligations to this Court. Given
the minimal delay and the fact that Plaintiff does not oppose
this motion, the Court shall grant the motion for leave to
file a responsive brief and grant the request for an
extension of the briefing deadline. However, the Court is
mindful of staffing requirements which also affect the
judiciary. These time consuming orders addressing matters
involving a lack of diligence takes time away from the Court
addressing substantive matters important to all parties. The
Court's lecture series will soon end and rights of a
party may be affected if that party is not diligent. The
prudent course here by counsel, point these facts out when
requesting the initial extension- Save time for all. Here
endeth the lesson.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's motion for leave for late filing (ECF No.
16), is GRANTED;
2. Defendant's responsive brief shall be filed on or
before January 31, 2020; and
3. Plaintiff s reply brief, if any, shall be filed on or
before ...