Whipple v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 27

ORDER GRANTING 26 Extension of Time, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/29/2017. Response to opening brief due by 8/17/2017. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DOROTHY WHIPPLE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL1,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

15
Defendant.

) Case No.: 1:16-cv-01254- JLT
)
) ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME
)
) (Doc. 26)
)
)
)
)
)

16
17
18

On June 28, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation for an extension of forty-five days for
Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff’s opening brief. (Doc. 26)

19

The Scheduling Order allows for a single extension of thirty days by the stipulation (Doc. 6 at

20

4), which was previously used by Plaintiff for the filing of an opening brief. (Docs. 20, 201) Beyond

21

that extension, “requests to modify [the scheduling] order must be made by written motion and will be

22

granted only for good cause.” (Doc. 6 at 4) Accordingly, the Court construes the stipulation as a

23

motion for modification of the briefing schedule.

24

Defendant’s counsel, Tina Naicker, asserts the extension is necessary because she is scheduled

25

to be out of the office on the current deadline date of July 3, 2017. (Doc. 26 at 1) In addition, Ms.

26

Naicker asserts that she previously was out of the office on unexpected leave, which resulted in her

27
28

1

Nancy A. Berryhill is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court substitutes Nancy A. Berryhill for her predecessor, Carolyn W. Colvin, as the defendant.

1

1

falling behind on her caseload. (Id.) She reports that she “has over 50 active pending matters, of which

2

require 2+ responses to dispositive motions per week until mid-August.” (Id. at 1-2) Given the

3

backlog of her cases and weight of the caseload, Ms. Naicker requests the time for responding to

4

Plaintiff’s opening brief “be extended for forty-five (45) days from July 3, 2017 to August 17, 2017.”

5

(Id. at 1, emphasis omitted) Plaintiff does not oppose the request for the extension of time, and

6

stipulates to the proposed modification of the Scheduling Order. (Id. at 2) Good cause appearing, the

7

Court ORDERS:

8

1.

Defendant’s request for an extension of time is GRANTED; and

9

2.

Defendant SHALL file a response to the opening brief on or before August 17, 2017.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 29, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2