Celedon v. CSS

Filing 20

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 19 Plaintiff's Request for a Further Extension of Time, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/5/2017. Opening Brief due by 1/30/2017. (Hall, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARYANN CELEDON, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:16-cv-0440- JLT ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. 19) 17 On January 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a stipulation of the parties to extend time for Plaintiff to file 18 an opening brief in the action. (Doc. 19) Notably, the Scheduling Order allows for a single extension 19 of thirty days by the stipulation of the parties (Doc. 4-1 at 4), and this is the third extension requested. 20 (See Docs. 9, 16) 21 Beyond the single extension permitted by the Scheduling Order, “requests to modify [the 22 scheduling] order must be made by written motion and will be granted only for good cause.” (Doc. 4-1 23 at 4) In addition, the parties were cautioned that requests for modification of the Court’s schedule “will 24 not routinely be granted.” (Id., emphasis in original) Despite the Court’s order, Plaintiff failed to file a 25 written motion for amending the scheduling order for an extension, which Plaintiff contends is 26 necessary “to properly address the issues within the administrative record in this matter.” (Doc. 19 at 27 2) However, Plaintiff should be aware of the issues at this juncture, given Court’s requirement that 28 Plaintiff prepare and serve “a letter brief outlining the reasons why []she contends that a remand is 1 1 warranted,” including “the relevant issues and reasons for the remand.” (See Doc. 4-1 at 2) Moreover, 2 Plaintiff fails to explain why the requested extension of sixty days is necessary.1 3 4 Nevertheless, the Court notes that Defendant does not oppose the request for a further extension of time. (See Doc. 19) Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. Plaintiff’s request for a further extension of time is GRANTED IN PART; 6 2. Plaintiff SHALL file an opening brief no later than January 30, 2017; 7 3. Plaintiff is reminded that the opening brief SHALL include a summary of all relevant 8 medical evidence, including the significance of laboratory findings; testimony; and a 9 short statement of all claimed issues; and 10 11 The parties are cautioned that no further extensions will be granted without a showing of exceptionally good cause. 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 5, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Defendant served the Commissioner’s response to the letter brief on November 30, 2016. (Doc. 18) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s opening brief was to be filed no later than December 30, 2016. (See Doc. 4-1 at 2) (directing Plaintiff to file an opening brief “within thirty (30) days of service.” 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?