print

Upon assignment of cases by consent or referral to Judge Bass Ehler, the Court will enter a minute order requiring the parties to file a joint status report. See Judge Bass Ehler’s Standing Order for Initial Status Report for the information to be included in the parties' joint initial status report.

Consistent with the scope of the consent or referral and after reviewing the joint initial status report, the Court will either set an initial status hearing or by minute order set discovery schedules, briefing schedules, and other deadlines and timetables. If the Court sets a status hearing, the lead trial counsel for each party, or an attorney with substantial familiarity with and responsibility for the case, shall appear and be prepared to discuss all aspects of the case.

A joint status report is not required in cases that are referred solely for a settlement conference, unless otherwise specifically ordered by the Court.

print

The Court believes that the parties can and should work out most discovery disputes, and thus discourages the filing of discovery motions. The Court will not hear or consider any discovery motion unless the parties have complied with the meet and confer requirement under Local Rule 37.2. Any discovery motion must state with specificity when and how the movant complied with Local Rule 37.2 by separate certificate filed with the motion and attested to by the attorney.

Parties are reminded that compliance with Local Rule 37.2 requires a good faith effort to resolve discovery disputes through communication and negotiation. The Court believes face to face communications regarding discovery disputes are the most effective way to resolve them and requires counsel for parties to meet in person unless it is impracticable to do so, and, if impracticable, describe why. Videoconferencing satisfies this requirement. The Rule 37.2 Certificate must state that this requirement has been met or why it cannot be met with particularity. The mere exchange of correspondence (through emails, text messages, instant messaging, etc.) will not be sufficient to comply with Local Rule 37.2. Parties who fail to indicate that they have met in person to attempt to resolve their dispute risk having their motion stricken.

Any motions to compel must identify and attach the specific discovery requests at issue, as well as the opposing party’s response (i.e., motions must not simply identify specific “categories” of documents or discovery that the movant seeks). Motions to compel must also include arguments supporting the relevance and proportionality of the requested discovery. Motions to compel may be summarily stricken for a failure to comply with these rules. Moreover, parties must not seek overbroad requests in the hope that the Court will tailor the resolution on its own; each discovery request will be adjudicated based on the totality of the request, so parties should appropriately narrow their requests ahead of time. Failure to do so may result in denial of the motion to compel with prejudice; the Court will not tailor a discovery request for the party when it could have done it on its own.

Parties are not allowed to file a brief in response or reply of a discovery motion without leave of Court. If the Court requests additional briefing, the Court will enter a minute order setting forth a schedule.

The Court reminds the parties of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5), which requires the Court to award the winning side fees and costs unless the losing party’s position was substantially justified or awarding fees and costs would be unjust.

With particular respect to electronic discovery disputes, if the parties have reached an impasse regarding the discovery of records from a database, server, computer, service provider or similar electronic storage facility (ESF), before filing a motion to compel, the parties are required to meet and confer with an IT representative for each party in order to determine the most effective and feasible ways to retrieve the requested material, as well as the proper format for the retrieval of the records. This electronic discovery conference must take place in person or by videoconference, and both sides should be prepared to discuss specifically the parameters of both the search(es) and the ESF.

print

The Court will generally enter an order setting dates that adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Supplemental Rules for Social Security Motions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), typically providing that: (a) an answer must be filed within 60 days after notice of the actions is given under FRCP 3. Pursuant to Local Rule 8.1(b), the Social Security Administration's filing of the certified administrative record, in and of itself, shall suffice as the agency's answer to the complaint; (b) Plaintiff's brief in support of reversing or remanding the decision subject to review shall be filed within 30 days of the filing of the administrative record (no motion required); (c) The Social Security Administration’s motion to affirm the decision subject to review and its brief in support shall be filed within 30 days after plaintiff’s brief is filed; (d) Plaintiff’s reply brief, if any, shall be filed 14 days after defendant’s brief is filed. Judge Bass Ehler will only grant extensions on the briefing schedule for good cause shown.

The page limit on briefs in Social Security Cases is twenty (20) pages. Briefs exceeding twenty (20) pages are discouraged and may be filed only with leave of Court.

• Plaintiff's Memorandum

  The plaintiff shall identify the specific grounds for reversal or remand. Arguing generally that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence is not sufficient. The plaintiff shall include only those facts that relate to the issues presented. It is not necessary to include plaintiff’s entire medical history if it is not relevant to the issues raised. It is also not necessary to devote multiple pages to the well-recognized standards for the five-part test. Please cite a case that you believe accurately states the legal principles you wish the Court to apply and make the Court aware of relevant contrary authority.

• The Commissioner’s Memorandum

  The Commissioner is strongly encouraged (where it makes sense) to respond to the plaintiff’s assertions and arguments raised in plaintiff’s brief in the same order raised by Plaintiff. Arguing generally that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence is not sufficient. The Commissioner’s brief may supplement the plaintiff’s facts where needed. Do not feel compelled to repeat facts included in the plaintiff’s brief. Be sure to cite to specific record evidence in support of each argument.