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)

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