Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 15

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 September 22, 2017; Defendants response to Plaintiffs opening brief shall be filed on or before October 2 3, 2017; Plaintiffs reply, if any, shall be filed on or before November 7, 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, requ ests 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 di sfavor 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 8/16/2017. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DONALD JACKSON,

12
13

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:16-cv-01917-SAB
ORDER RE STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF

v.
(ECF No. 14)

14

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

15
Defendant.
16
17
18
19

On August 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a stipulation to extend the time for him to file his
opening brief. (ECF No. 14.) Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1.

Plaintiff shall file an opening brief on or before September 22, 2017;

21

2.

Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s opening brief shall be filed on or before
October 23, 2017;

22
23

3.

Plaintiff’s reply, if any, shall be filed on or before November 7, 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:

August 16, 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