Martin-Barnett v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 23

STIPULATION and ORDER GRANTING the parties' request for a modification of the scheduling order as follows: Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment due by 1/5/2018; defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment due by 2/5/2018; and plaintiff's response to defendant's cross motion due by 2/19/2018. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 12/12/2017. (Rooney, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 Robert C Weems (CA SBN 148156) WEEMS LAW OFFICES 769 Center Blvd., PMB 38 Fairfax, CA 94930 Ph: 415.881.7653 Fx: 866.610.1430 rcweems@weemslawoffices.com Attorney for Plaintiff 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BERNADINE MARTIN-BARNETT, Case No. 1:16-CV-00780-EPG Plaintiff, 11 12 v. 13 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, subject to the Court’s approval, that the scheduling order in this action be further modified to extend the parties filing deadlines by roughly 25 days. Modification is necessary, appropriate and in the interests of judicial economy because after the exchange of letter briefs, plaintiff’s counsel became aware of additional medical records which he believes constitutes new and material evidence warranting remand under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence six; such records have been provided for review by the Commissioner of Social Security, whose review was ongoing until recently, but has not resulted in the resolution of this action. To provide adequate time for plaintiff to complete her motion for summary judgment and meet the professional standards of the Court, plaintiff’s counsel requires an extension of existing deadlines by 25 days in light of interruptions associated with upcoming holidays and unanticipated demands in his criminal calendar and other matters now pending. The parties believe and agree that a roughly 25 day extension of their respective merits filing deadlines is appropriate and is not prejudicial to either party. 1 1 2 Accordingly, the parties agree to and request modification of the existing scheduling order and outstanding deadlines, as follows: 3 January 5, 2018: Plaintiff to file and serve motion for summary judgment. 4 February 5, 2018: Defendant to file and serve cross-motion for summary judgment. 5 February 19, 2018: Plaintiff to file and serve response to cross-motion. 6 7 8 SO STIPULATED AND AGREED: Dated: December 12, 2017 WEEMS LAW OFFICES /s/ Robert C. Weems 9 Robert C. Weems, Attorney for Plaintiff 10 14 PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney DEBORAH LEE STACHEL Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX Social Security Administration TINA NAICKER Special Assistant United States Attorney 15 /s/Tina Naicker 11 Dated: December 12, 2017 12 13 TINA NAICKER Special Assistant United States Attorney and Attorney for Defendant (per e-mail authorization) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 ORDER 1 2 Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the existing scheduling order and outstanding deadlines 3 are CONTINUED as follows: 4 5 January 5, 2018: February 5, 2018: February 19, 2018: 6 No further extensions of time will granted in this case. 7 8 9 10 Plaintiff to file and serve motion for summary judgment. Defendant to file and serve cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff to file and serve response to cross-motion. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 12, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?