R.C. v. O'Malley
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:24-cv-07367
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In R.C. v. O'Malley, Judge Gilliam approved a 15-day extension for Plaintiff's reply brief because counsel received new medical evidence.
The plaintiff received additional time, and the defendant faced a later deadline for the plaintiff's reply brief.
What happened
In R.C. v. O'Malley, the plaintiff asked for more time to file a reply supporting reversal of the Social Security Commissioner's decision. The reply was due May 9, 2025.
The plaintiff requested an extension until May 24, 2025. Plaintiff's counsel said the plaintiff had recently been diagnosed with metastatic cancer and that counsel had received more than 900 pages of medical records that might relate to the case. Counsel said more time was needed to review the records and consider whether to ask to add them to the court record.
The defendant's counsel did not object to a 15-day extension. On May 12, 2025, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. approved the request and ordered the extension.
The detailed version
- R.C. v. O'Malley · No. 4:24-cv-07367
- Haywood Gilliam
- May 12, 2025
Background
The plaintiff is challenging the Commissioner's decision in a Social Security case and planned to file a reply brief supporting reversal of that decision. The reply was due May 9, 2025.
Request for More Time
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A), the plaintiff requested a 15-day extension, through May 24, 2025. Plaintiff's counsel stated that the plaintiff had been diagnosed with metastatic cancer less than two weeks earlier. Counsel also reported receiving more than 900 pages of new medical evidence, including records concerning squamous cell carcinoma and bone metastasis.
Counsel said the new evidence might be material to issues in the case, including the plaintiff's hearing testimony. Counsel requested additional time to review the records and determine whether there was good cause to seek their inclusion in the administrative record under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The defendant's counsel indicated that the defendant did not object to the 15-day extension.
Ruling
The court approved the requested extension and ordered that the plaintiff's reply brief could be filed by May 24, 2025. The order did not decide whether the new medical evidence would be added to the record or whether the Commissioner’s decision should be reversed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.