Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
21
ORDER GRANTING Defendant's Request for an Extension of time 20 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/19/2015. (Kusamura, W)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, )
)
)
Defendant.
)
APRIL TAYLOR,
Case No.: 1:14-cv-01033- JLT
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST
FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
(Doc. 20)
16
On June 19, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s opening
17
18
brief. (Doc. 20.) Importantly, the scheduling order in this action allows for “a single thirty (30) day
19
extension” by stipulation of the parties. (Doc. 5 at 4, emphasis added.) This extension was used
20
previously by Plaintiff, who requested an extension of time on March 18, 2015. (Docs. 14-15.) Beyond
21
the single thirty-day extension, “requests to modify [the scheduling] order must be made by written
22
motion and will be granted only for good cause.” (Id.) Therefore, the Court construes the stipulation
23
of the parties to be a motion by Plaintiff for modification of the Court’s Scheduling Order.
Here, Defendant’s counsel requests the extension of thirty days, reporting it is necessary given
24
25
“his workload, and in order for counsel to review and respond to the issues raised in Plaintiff’s
26
motion.” (Doc. 20 at 1.) Plaintiff does not oppose the request for an extension. (See id. at 1- 2).
27
///
28
///
1
1
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
2
1.
Defendant’s request for an extension of time is GRANTED; and
3
2.
Defendant SHALL file a response to Plaintiff’s opening brief no later than
July 22, 2015.
4
5
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
June 19, 2015
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?