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)

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