Ibarra v. Martin O'Malley

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NICOLAS IBARRA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SSA (INTERESTED PARTY / NEF), et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-01037-SI
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
DISCOVERY REQUEST WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 178, 179
The parties to this action have filed separate discovery dispute statements. Dkt. Nos. 178,
179. It is unclear from the statements precisely what relief plaintiff requests and whether any items
remain in dispute. Plaintiff’s statement says that the discovery dispute is about plaintiff’s RFP No.
2, Exh. A.1 Dkt. No. 178 at 1. However, RFP No. 2 is a request for Social Security policies. Most
of the discovery dispute statement discusses the need for access to plaintiff’s claims file, “associated
SSI MSSICS file,” and notices from the Social Security Administration. Id. at 1-2. Although there
is some reference in the statement to the need for Social Security policies, it is unclear what policies
are in dispute. Plaintiff quotes an email exchange from September that states, “The Agency will
produce additional documents regarding the Agency’s policies, practices, and procedures related to
reasonable accommodation and effective communication.” Id. at 1. It is unclear whether plaintiff
is still seeking policies or whether those policies have been produced since September.
Defendant states that plaintiff’s entire digital claims file and MSSICS documents were
already produced in August and September and that defendant is now re-reviewing these documents
to confirm production. Dkt. No. 179 at 2-3. In addition, defendant states that the notice of a January
1 There is no “Exhibit A” to the discovery dispute statement.
Case 3:23-cv-01037-SI Document 182 Filed 12/30/25 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
24, 2020 interview that plaintiff said was missing has now been collected for production and that
defendant has also agreed to produce training documents. Id.
Because the Court finds that plaintiff’s discovery statement lacks clarity regarding what
remains in dispute, and because it appears that defendant is in the process of re-reviewing and
producing additional material, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s request for a discovery order at this
time. The Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer no later than January 16, 2026,
regarding the remaining disputes, if any, and the timing of defendant’s production. If a dispute
remains after a good faith attempt at meeting and conferring, the parties may re-file a discovery
dispute statement that conforms with the undersigned’s Standing Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 30, 2025
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-01037-SI Document 182 Filed 12/30/25 Page 2 of 2