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)
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?