Crummey v. Social Security Administration

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• granting summary judgment on similar Privacy Act claim where plaintiff “failed to present even a scintilla of competent evidence suggesting that the SSA’s records are, in actuality, materially inaccurate or incomplete”
• denying plaintiff’s motion to file a surreply for several reasons, including that the reply did not expand the scope of issues presented, the local rules contemplate three memoranda on a given motion and a general disfavor for Consol. Court No. 13-00100 Page 5 surreplies
• “[A] surreply is not a vehicle for rehashing arguments that have already been raised and briefed by the parties.”
• “The same stretched timeline (investigation completed by September 8, 2022; notation proposed over 45 days later, on October 24, 2022
• surreplies permitted “when the nonmovant is deprived of the opportunity to contest matters raised for the first time in the movant’s reply”
• “[B]ecause [Plaintiff] has already received all the records responsive to his requests that are in the [agency]'s possession, custody, or control, his requests for access are moot and the associated relief unavailable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).