Pendergast v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

ORDER GRANTING 17 Defendant's Second Request for an Extension of Time, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/3/2017. Response brief due by 3/29/2017. (Hall, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRYAN RUSSELL PENDERGAST, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:16-cv-0552- JLT ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S SECOND REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. 17) 16 17 On February 24, 2017, Defendant filed a stipulation of the parties to extend time for the 18 Commissioner to file a response to Plaintiff’s opening brief in the action. (Doc. 17) Notably, the 19 Scheduling Order allows for a single extension of thirty days by the stipulation of the parties (Doc. 7 at 20 4), and this is the third extension requested by the parties. (See Docs. 12, 15) 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. 7 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, Defendant failed to 25 file a written motion for amending the scheduling order for an extension, which Defendant’s counsel 26 contends is necessary “because he has a very heavy workload, and because of an upcoming family 27 vacation to Taiwan that will result in an absence from the office from Monday, February 27 through 28 Friday, March 17, 2017.” (Doc. 17 at 1) 1 1 Notably, it appears Defendant’s counsel should have been aware of his pending vacation when 2 he previously requested an extension of time to February 27—the day of his departure from the office. 3 (See Doc. 15 at 1) Nevertheless, the Court notes that Plaintiff does not oppose the request for a further 4 extension of time. (See Doc. 17) Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. Defendant’s request for a further extension of time is GRANTED; 6 2. Defendant SHALL file a response to the opening brief no later than March 29 2017; 7 3. The parties are advised that the Court contemplates that no further extensions of time will be sought; and 8 9 4. If Defendant fails to file the responsive brief in compliance with this deadline ordered by the Court, the matter will be decided without any input by Defendant. 10 11 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 3, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?