Renfro v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER RE STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Plaintiff shall file an opening brief on or before August 14, 2017; Defendants response to Plaintiffs opening brief shall be filed on or before September 13 , 2017; Plaintiffs reply, if any, shall be filed on or before September 28, 2017; and The parties are advised that due to the impact of social security cases on the Courts docket and the Courts desire to have cases decided in an expedient manner, req uests for modification of the briefing scheduling will not routinely be granted and will only be granted upon a showing of good cause. Further, requests to modify the briefing schedule that are made on the eve of a deadline will be looked upon with d isfavor and may be denied absent good cause for the delay in seeking an extension. If done after a deadline, the party seeking an extension must show additional good cause why the matter was filed late with the request for nunc pro tunc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/25/2017. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARC ALAN RENFRO,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01733-SAB
ORDER RE STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

(ECF No. 18)

15
Defendant.
16
17
18
19

On July 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a stipulation to extend the time for him to file his opening
brief. (ECF No. 18.) Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1.

Plaintiff shall file an opening brief on or before August 14, 2017;

21

2.

Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s opening brief shall be filed on or before
September 13, 2017;

22
23

3.

Plaintiff’s reply, if any, shall be filed on or before September 28, 2017; and

24

4.

The parties are advised that due to the impact of social security cases on the

25

Court’s docket and the Court’s desire to have cases decided in an expedient

26

manner, requests for modification of the briefing scheduling will not routinely be

27

granted and will only be granted upon a showing of good cause. Further, requests

28

to modify the briefing schedule that are made on the eve of a deadline will be
1

1

looked upon with disfavor and may be denied absent good cause for the delay in

2

seeking an extension. If done after a deadline, the party seeking an extension

3

must show additional good cause why the matter was filed late with the request

4

for nunc pro tunc.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 25, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2