Coronado v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 31

ORDER GRANTING IN PART STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS OPENING BRIEF. Defendants stipulation for a second extension of time to file an opposition to Plaintiffs opening brief is GRANTED IN PART; Defendant shall file an opposition to Plaintiffs opening brief on or before September 16, 2016; and Plaintiffs reply, if any, shall be filed on or before October 3, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/14/2016. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TIM CORONADO, Jr.,

12

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE OPPOSITION
TO PLAINTIFF’S OPENING BRIEF

v.

13
14

Case No. 1:15-cv-00806-AWI-SAB

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
(ECF No. 30)

15

Defendant.

16
17

On August 12, 2016, Defendant filed a stipulation for an extension of time to file the

18 opposition to Plaintiff’s opening brief. (ECF No. 28.) In Defendant’s first stipulation for an
19 extension of time, Defendant stated that the extension was necessary due to Defendant’s
20 counsel’s workload. (ECF No. 28.) On August 15, 2016, the Court granted Defendant an
21 extension to September 14, 2016, to file the opposition to Plaintiff’s opening brief. (ECF No.
22 29.)
23

On September 14, 2016, Defendant filed a stipulation for a second extension of time to

24 September 21, 2016, to file the opposition to Plaintiff’s opening brief. (ECF No. 30.) Defendant
25 states that an extension is necessary due to workload including a high volume of other disability
26 and employment matters. (ECF No. 30.) Defendant has given the same reason in the second
27 extension of time as she gave in the first extension of time without any new facts supporting an
28 extension of time. Based upon a review of Defendant’s stipulation for a second extension of

1

1 time, and in light of the fact that Defendant filed the request on the eve of the deadline without
2 an explanation for the delay in seeking an extension, Defendant is granted an extension to
3 September 16, 2016, to file the opposition to Plaintiff’s opening brief. Plaintiff’s reply, if any,
4 shall be filed on or before October 3, 2016.
The parties are advised that due to the impact of social security cases on the Court’s

5

6 docket and the Court’s desire to have cases decided in an expedient manner, requests for
7 modification of the briefing scheduling will not routinely be granted and will only be granted
8 upon a showing of good cause. Further, requests to modify the briefing schedule that are made
9 on the eve of a deadline will be looked upon with disfavor and may be denied absent good cause
10 for the delay in seeking an extension.
11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1.

Defendant’s stipulation for a second extension of time to file an opposition to
Plaintiff’s opening brief is GRANTED IN PART;

13
2.

14

Defendant shall file an opposition to Plaintiff’s opening brief on or before
September 16, 2016; and

15
3.

16

Plaintiff’s reply, if any, shall be filed on or before October 3, 2016.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated:

September 14, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2