McKinley v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 22

ORDER GRANTING 21 Defendants' Request for an Extension of Time, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/4/2016. Responsive brief due by 8/26/2016. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTINE MCKINLEY,

12
13
14

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

15
Defendant.
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01078- JLT
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST
FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
(Doc. 21)

On August 3, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation for a thirty-day extension of time for

18

Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff’s opening brief. (Doc. 21) Notably, the Scheduling Order

19

permits only a single extension by the stipulation of parties (Doc. 8 at 4), which was used by Plaintiff

20

in seeking an extension to file the opening brief (Doc. 16). In addition, Plaintiff sought a second

21

extension of time to file the opening brief. (Docs. 18-29) Thus, this is the third extension sought by

22

the parties in this action.

23

Notably, beyond the first extension, “requests to modify [the schedule] must be made by

24

written motion and will only be granted for good cause.” (Doc. 8 at 4) Moreover, as explained by the

25

Ninth Circuit, a scheduling order “is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be

26

cavalierly disregarded without peril.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th

27

Cir. 1992). The deadlines are considered “firm, real and are to be taken seriously by parties and their

28

counsel.” Shore v. Brown, 74 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1260, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94828 at *7
1

1
2

(E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2009).
Here, Defendant’s counsel Jeffrey Chen asserts the additional time is necessary “because of a

3

very heavy workload, including an upcoming Ninth Circuit brief, and because of a planned vacation in

4

August.” (Doc. 21 at 1) Presumably, when Mr. Chen agreed to the extensions previously requested

5

by Plaintiff, he knew both of his pending vacation and his workload. The failure to plan accordingly is

6

not condoned by the Court. Nevertheless, Plaintiff does not oppose the request for an extension of

7

time. (See Doc. 21 at 2) Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

8

1.

Defendant’s request for an extension of time is GRANTED;

9

2.

Defendant SHALL file a responsive brief no later than August 26, 2016; and

10

3.

The parties are advised that no further extensions of time will be approved with a
showing of exceptionally good cause.

11
12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 4, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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