Rutledge v. Commissioner of Social Security
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 20, 2017; Defendants response to Plaintiffs opening brief shall be filed on or before January 19, 2018; and Plaintiffs reply, if any, shall be filed on or before February 5, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/27/2017. (Hernandez, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KENT ANTHONY RUTLEDGE,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00366-SAB
ORDER RE STIPULATION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPENING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY.
(ECF No. 11)
On March 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed the present action seeking review of the
18 Commissioner’s denial of an application for benefits. On March 14, 2017, the Court issued a
19 scheduling order. (ECF No. 3). The scheduling order states that within 30 days of the date of
20 service of Defendant’s confidential letter brief, Plaintiff shall file an opening brief. Defendant
21 served her confidential letter brief on October 23, 2017. (ECF No. 10.)
On November 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a stipulation to extend the time to file his opening
23 brief from November 22, 2017, to December 20, 2017. (ECF No. 11.) Based on the stipulation,
24 the time for Plaintiff to file his opening brief will be extended to December 20, 2017. However,
25 Plaintiff should have filed the stipulation prior to the deadline as the court had prepared, but not
26 signed, an order to show cause on Plaintiff for failure to timely file the opening brief.
The parties are advised that absent extraordinary circumstances, the parties should file
28 any requests for extensions of deadlines prior to the expiration of the deadline. The parties are
1 advised that any future failures to comply with the scheduling order in this matter may result in
2 sanctions pursuant to Local Rule 110.
The parties are advised that due to the impact of social security cases on the Court’s
4 docket and the Court’s desire to have cases decided in an expedient manner, requests for
5 modification of the briefing scheduling will not routinely be granted and will only be granted
6 upon a showing of good cause. Further, requests to modify the briefing schedule that are made
7 on the eve of a deadline will be looked upon with disfavor and may be denied absent good cause
8 for the delay in seeking an extension. If done after a deadline, the party seeking an extension
9 must show additional good cause why the matter was filed late with the request for nunc pro
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Plaintiff shall file an opening brief on or before December 20, 2017;
Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s opening brief shall be filed on or before
January 19, 2018; and
Plaintiff’s reply, if any, shall be filed on or before February 5, 2018.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 27, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?