No announcement yet.

E.D. Cal.: Use of Evidence not Contained within the Administrative Record

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • E.D. Cal.: Use of Evidence not Contained within the Administrative Record

    In an opinion from the Eastern District of California, the court takes up the issue of extrinsic evidence being offered to strengthen a Plaintiff's case. The defense argues that such evidence should not be considered as the Plaintiff was procedurally deficient in complying with the deadlines set by the court. The court concurred:

    The Court here ordered that “[a]ll non-dispositive pre-trial motions, including any motions to augment the record, shall be filed no later than April 21, 2017... No written motions shall be filed without the prior approval of the assigned Magistrate Judge.” (ECF No. 21 at 2) (emphasis added). Plaintiff produced Dr. Berry’s December 2016 letter to Defendant in supplemental initial disclosures on April 13, 2017. (ECF No. 43-1, 43-2). However, Plaintiff made no motion to augment the record on or before April 21, 2017, and did not explain why the deadline in the scheduling order was not met when she made the current request for extrinsic evidence to be considered on September 19, 2017. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Good cause exists when the moving party demonstrates he cannot meet the deadline of the scheduling order despite exercising due diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992); see also, Davis v. Calvin, No. CIVS071383FCDEFBP, 2008 WL 4287149, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2008). “If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Here, Plaintiff has not given any explanation for why it was unable to meet the scheduling order deadline to file such a motion even though she had Dr. Berry’s letter in her possession prior to the deadline. The Court finds no good cause for why such evidence should be considered after the deadline set by the court. As such, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request to consider extrinsic evidence.
    However, as the opinion continues, the court ultimately found for the Plaintiff, and reinstated Plaintiff's LTD benefits after finding that the Defendant abused its discretion. The opinion is attached below.
    Attached Files