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)

Download PDF
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?