ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE ADMINSTRATIVE RECORD, DENYING THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER, AND DENYING THE REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA, Chief Magistrate Judge.

Pro se plaintiff filed a motion for discovery that has been construed as a motion to supplement the administrative record. Dkt. 14. Plaintiff contends that he mailed two documents identified as Dockets 054108 and 054109—so-labeled because they were part of a state unemployment benefits action—and those documents should have been part of the administrative alongside Docket 054107. Dkt. 14; see Tr. 14-16 (Docket 054107). In response, the Commissioner contends there is no evidence the Commissioner ever received Dockets 054108 and 054109 and therefore cannot produce them and, in any event, plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the requested documents show a reasonable possibility of changing the outcome of the current appeal. Dkt. 17. In reply, plaintiff cites photo scans of the first pages of Dockets 054108 and 054109 that currently exist in the administrative record. Dkt. 18, at 5-6; see Tr. 437-47. Plaintiff states that he can produce copies of Documents 054108 and 054109 upon request and that they are relevant to the question of alleged onset date. Dkt. 18, at 6.

The Court GRANTS plaintiff's motion to supplement the administrative record and DIRECTS plaintiff to attach Dockets 054108 and 054109 to his opening brief. Dkt. 14. The Court takes judicial notice that the parties disagree about whether they were actually received by the Commissioner and that these documents are officially part of a state administrative proceeding. For the reasons previously stated, the Court DENIES plaintiff's request to reconsider the Court's decision to deny supplementing the administrative record with irrelevant documentation. See Dkt.16. The Court DENIES as unnecessary plaintiff's request for oral argument on the current motion. The Court reminds plaintiff that the current action is an appeal, not a trial. The Court will be reviewing whether the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence and free from harmful legal error. The Court will not be determining the adequacy or inadequacy of the Commissioner's mailing or filing procedures. Plaintiff's argumentation should be directed toward whether the ALJ's decision was factually and legally supported.