(SS) Rummerfield v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACK EARL RUMMERFIELD, Case No. 1:22-cv-01571-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY FOOTNOTES SHOULD BE 13 v. STRICKEN FROM MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS SANCTION 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL FOR VIOLATING PAGE LIMITS SECURITY, 15 (ECF No. 18) Defendant. 16 DEADLINE: CLOSE OF BUSINESS MARCH 18, 2024 17 18 19 On June 2, 2022, Jack Earl Rummerfield (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for summary judgment 20 seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” 21 or “Defendant”) denying his application for disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. 22 Upon review of Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds a willful violation of the page limits set forth in 23 the General Civil Case Information for the undersigned. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall be ordered to 24 show cause why the footnotes in the motion for summary judgment should not be stricken as a 25 sanction for violating the Court’s page limitations for motions. 26 Pursuant to the Court’s general procedures, “all moving and opposition briefs or legal 27 memorandum in civil cases shall not exceed twenty-five (25 pages). . . . Briefs that exceed the page limitations or are sought to be filed without leave may not be considered.” See General Civil Case 1 Information, ¶ 7, available at http://www.caed.uscourts.gov, under Judges; United States Magistrate 2 Judge Stanley A. Boone (SAB), General Civil Case Information. 3 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is 28 pages in length. Review of the motion shows 4 extensive use of footnotes which the Court finds to be a willful attempt to violate the page limits 5 set forth above. Footnotes in the instant motion comprise approximately a half page on 4 pages 6 (Mot. at 14, 15, 20, 26), a third page on 2 pages (id. at 24, 27), a quarter page on 2 pages (id. at 17, 7 22), and over three quarters of the page on 1 page (id. at 23). Further, these footnotes contain 8 argument and citations to law and evidence in support of Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff did not seek 9 leave to file an oversized brief in this matter, and review of the motion can only lead to the 10 conclusion that the use of footnotes was willful in order to avoid the appearance of being over the 11 page limits set forth above. 12 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the underlying purpose of the rules is 13 to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination” of an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. To 14 effectuate this purpose the Rules provide for sanctions against parties that fail to comply with 15 court orders or that unnecessarily multiply the proceedings. See e.g. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Fed. 16 R. Civ. P. 37(b). Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the court to issue 17 any just order if a party or attorney fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order. 18 The court also possesses inherent authority to impose sanctions to manage its own affairs 19 so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 20 U.S. 32, 43 (1991). The court’s inherent power is that which is necessary to the exercise of all 21 others, including to protect the due and orderly administration of justice and maintain the 22 authority and dignity of the court. Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764 (1980). The 23 Local Rules of the Eastern District of California (“L.R.”) provide that “[f]ailure of counsel or of 24 a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition 25 by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power 26 of the Court.” L.R. 110. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT on or before close of business on March 1 | should not be stricken for the willful violation of the Court’s procedures setting a page limit of 2 |twenty-five pages for moving papers. 3 4 IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 5 Dated: _ March 14, 2024 " ‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28