Griffin v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING Defendant's Third Request for an Extension of Time (Doc. 14 ), Signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/16/2015. Defendant SHALL serve a response to the opening brief no later than April 24, 2015. (Arellano, S.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH GRIFFIN,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLY W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00933- JLT
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S THIRD
REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
(Doc. 14)

17
18

On April 15, 2015, Defendant filed a request for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s

19

opening brief. (Doc. 14.) The Scheduling Order permits a single thirty-day extension by the

20

stipulation of parties. (Doc. 3 at 4). Any further requests for an extension must be made via a motion

21

by the party seeking to amend the briefing schedule, and supported by good cause. (Id.) Because the

22

parties previously stipulated for an extension of time in this action (Doc. 7), the Court construes the

23

stipulation filed to be a motion by Defendant to amend the Scheduling Order.

24

Defendant’s counsel requests the extension “because she is continuing to consider settling this

25

matter without further action of the Court.” (Doc. 14 at 1.) Significantly, the Court previously

26

granted a thirty-day extension for Defendant to consider settlement on March 5, 2015 (Doc. 12), and

27

granted a second extension of fourteen days for the same purpose on April 6, 2015. (Doc. 13.)

28

Despite the fact that the Scheduling Order cautioned the parties that requests for modification of “th[e]
1

1

briefing schedule will not routinely be granted” (Doc. 3 at 4), Defendant failed to comply with the

2

Schedule.

3

Moreover, the purpose of the confidential letter brief—which Plaintiff served no later than

4

December 17, 2014—was for Defendant to be aware of “the relevant issues” in the action and the

5

reasons Plaintiff “contends that a remand is warranted.” (See Doc. 3 at 2; Doc. 10.) Therefore,

6

Defendant should have been considering the possibility of remand and settlement prior to the filing of

7

Plaintiff’s opening brief in the action. Defendant’s counsel fails to demonstrate good cause to further

8

continue the briefing schedule in this action.

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

10

1.

Defendant’s third request for an extension of time is (Doc. 14) is DENIED; and

11

2.

Defendant SHALL serve a response to the opening brief no later than April 24, 2015.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 16, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2