Winkler v. Commissioner of Social Security, 1:18-cv-0099-JLT. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190806914
Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 05, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 05, 2019
Summary: ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S OPENING BRIEF ADDENDUM (Doc. 31) JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . On July 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed an "Opening brief-Addendum." (Doc. 31) The Court construes this document to be a second reply by Plaintiff to the Commissioner's answering brief. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, any reply brief was to be filed within fifteen days after the date of service of the Commissioner's answering brief. (Doc. 9 at 3, 8) Because the Commissioner served its respon
Summary: ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S OPENING BRIEF ADDENDUM (Doc. 31) JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . On July 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed an "Opening brief-Addendum." (Doc. 31) The Court construes this document to be a second reply by Plaintiff to the Commissioner's answering brief. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, any reply brief was to be filed within fifteen days after the date of service of the Commissioner's answering brief. (Doc. 9 at 3, 8) Because the Commissioner served its respons..
More
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S OPENING BRIEF ADDENDUM
(Doc. 31)
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
On July 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed an "Opening brief-Addendum." (Doc. 31) The Court construes this document to be a second reply by Plaintiff to the Commissioner's answering brief. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, any reply brief was to be filed within fifteen days after the date of service of the Commissioner's answering brief. (Doc. 9 at 3, ¶ 8) Because the Commissioner served its responsive brief on January 31, 2019 (Doc. 29), this reply is untimely. In addition, Plaintiff has not requested leave to amend the Court's scheduling order or to file a second reply brief. Accordingly, Plaintiff's "Opening Brief-Addendum" is STRICKEN.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
