Lorigo v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

ORDER GRANTING Nunc Pro Tunc Leave for Plaintiff to File Opening Brief Out of Time 20 . Plaintiff is granted, nunc pro tunc, leave to file the opening brief on January 7, 2014; Defendant's responsive brief shall be filed no later than February 6, 2014; and Plaintiff's reply brief shall be filed no later than February 13, 2014. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/8/2014. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
CARLOS LORIGO,

10

Plaintiff,

11
v.

12

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Comm'r
of Social Security,

13

Case No. 1:13-cv-00405-SKO
ORDER GRANTING NUNC PRO TUNC
LEAVE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE
OPENING BRIEF OUT OF TIME
(Docket No. 20)

14
Defendant.
15
_____________________________________/
16
17
On December 4, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation that Plaintiff's time to file the opening

18

19 brief be extended to January 6, 2014. (Doc. 18.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file the
20 opening brief on or before January 6, 2014.

(Doc. 19.) However, Plaintiff did not file an

1
21 opening brief until January 7, 2014, and failed to request leave to file the brief out of time.

22 (Doc. 20.)
The Court is generally inclined to grant good-cause requests for extensions of time,

23

24 particularly where additional time is necessary for the parties to discuss issues within the
25 administrative record. However, a party's subsequent failure to abide by the stipulation for an
26
1

The Court's order was not predicated on Plaintiff filing the opening brief within a specified time after service of the

27 order such that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) would apply to add an additional three (3) days to act. Rather,
28 the Court imposed a precise deadline – one that the parties themselves requested. (Docs. 18, 19.)

1 extension of time and the court order approving the stipulation is not only professionally
2 discourteous to opposing counsel – it is in direct contravention of an express court order.
3

While Plaintiff's counsel’s filing of the opening brief was untimely by only one day,

4 briefing schedules are not mere suggestions or worthless pieces of paper that the parties may
5 disregard at their whim; rather, counsel's disregard of scheduling orders places at peril their client's
6 case and risks sanctions. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir.
7 1992) (a scheduling order "is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly
8 disregarded by counsel without peril . . . Disregard of the order would undermine the court's
9 ability to control its docket, disrupt the agreed-upon course of the litigation, and reward the
10 indolent and cavalier.").
11

Plaintiff's counsel is ADMONISHED that any future failure to honor the terms of a

12 stipulation with opposing counsel or to abide by express court orders regarding briefing deadlines
13 will be viewed with disfavor.

Such continued failures may be cause for the imposition of

14 sanctions.
15

Since Plaintiff's brief was filed one day late, the other filing deadlines will be adjusted

16 accordingly, and one additional day will be added to the filing dates requested by the parties and
17 previously ordered by the Court.
18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

1.

20

Plaintiff is granted, nunc pro tunc, leave to file the opening brief on January 7,
2014;

21

2.

Defendant's responsive brief shall be filed no later than February 6, 2014; and

22

3.

Plaintiff's reply brief shall be filed no later than February 13, 2014.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 8, 2014

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2