Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 20 Plaintiff's Second Extension of Time, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/21/2015. Opening Brief due no later than 10/9/2015. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JANET DAVIS,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01632- JLT
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR A SECOND EXTENSION OF
TIME
(Doc. 20)

17
18

On September 18, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation to extend time for Plaintiff to file an

19

opening brief. (Doc. 20) Importantly, the scheduling order in this action allows for “a single thirty (30)

20

day extension” by stipulation of the parties. (Doc. 7 at 4, emphasis added) This extension was used

21

previously by Defendant’s counsel, who requested an extension of time on April 16, 2015. (Docs. 12-

22

13) Next, Plaintiff’s counsel requested an extension of time to file an opening brief, asserting she was

23

“in the process of resolving a backlog in her workload.” (Doc. 18 at 1) The Court reminded the parties

24

that “beyond the single thirty-day extension, ‘requests to modify [the scheduling] order must be made

25

by written motion and will be granted only for good cause.’” (Doc. 19 at 2, quoting Doc. 7at 4) The

26

Court granted the extension requested, but cautioned Plaintiff that “no further extensions will be

27

granted without the showing of exceptionally good cause.” (Doc. 19 at 2)

28

Despite this warning, Plaintiff’s counsel, Ms. Forslund, filed a stipulation of the parties for a
1

1

second extension of time to file an opening brief in this action.1 Ms. Forslund asserts the second

2

extension of thirty days is necessary because she “is in the process of resolving a backlog in her

3

workload.” (Doc. 20 at 1) Notably, Ms. Forslund has continually reported having a “backlog” to the

4

Court when seeking extensions of times in recent matters before the Court for nearly a year.2 The

5

Court finds Ms. Forslund fails to demonstrate exceptionally good cause, let alone good cause, for a

6

second extension of thirty days to file an opening brief in the matter.

7

Plaintiff’s counsel is reminded that a scheduling order “is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly

8

entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded without peril.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

9

975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). The deadlines are considered “firm, real and are to be taken

10

seriously by parties and their counsel.” Shore v. Brown, 74 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1260, 2009

11

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94828 at *7 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2009). Nevertheless, in the interest of justice for her

12

client, the Court will grant an extension of time for Ms. Forslund to prepare and file an opening brief.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

14

1.

Plaintiff’s request for a second extension of time is GRANTED IN PART; and

15

2.

Plaintiff SHALL file an opening brief no later than October 9, 2015.

16

Plaintiff’s counsel is cautioned that absolutely no further extensions of time will be

17

granted in this matter.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:

September 21, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
1

25
26
27
28

As the Court previously explained, the proper procedure for requesting a further extension of time is by a written motion
—not a stipulation. Thus, the request is procedurally defective.
2
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s counsel reported in October 2014 that she “recently experienced prolonged health
problems that caused a backlog in her workload.” Mitchell v. Colvin, Case No. 1:14-cv-00238-SMS (Doc. 14) Since that
time, she has frequently reported having a “recent” illness that caused a backlog of cases, and affected her ability to comply
with the Court’s scheduling orders. See, e.g., Lopez v. Colvin, Case No. 1:14-cv-00495-JLT (Doc. 17) (requesting
extensions of time in November 2014 and December 2014); Martinez v. Colvin, Case. No. 1:14-cv-01548-SMS (Doc. 17)
(in seeking the first two extensions of time, Ms. Forslund reported in May 2015 that she had “recently” experienced health
problems causing a backlog in her workload). The Court presumes she has suffered additional illnesses that have impacted
her ability to timely file these briefs on her clients’ behalves.

2