Vongphachanh 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 December 11, 2017; Defendants response to Plaintiffs opening brief shall be filed on or before January 10 , 2018; Plaintiffs reply, if any, shall be filed on or before January 25, 2018; 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, reque sts 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 dis favor 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 11/6/2017. (Hernandez, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
NANTHA VONGPHACHANH,
12
13
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00314-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 November 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a stipulation to extend the time for her to file her
opening brief. (ECF No. 14.) Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
20
1.
Plaintiff shall file an opening brief on or before December 11, 2017;
21
2.
Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s opening brief shall be filed on or before
January 10, 2018;
22
23
3.
Plaintiff’s reply, if any, shall be filed on or before January 25, 2018; 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:
November 6, 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
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?