Stills v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 20 Defendant's Request for an Extension of Time, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/27/2018. Response to opening brief due by 3/15/2018. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CYNTHIA STILLS,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL1,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

15
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-0486-JLT
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
(Doc. 20)

16
17

On February 28, 2018, the parties stipulated for an extension of time for Defendant to file a

18

response to Plaintiff’s opening brief. (Doc. 20) Defendant asserts that the request “is made in

19

accordance with the Scheduling Order…, which permits a single thirty-day extension by the stipulation

20

of the parties.” (Id. at 1)

21

Notably, as the parties acknowledge, the Scheduling Order permits “a single thirty (30) day

22

extension… by stipulation of the parties.” (Doc. 6 at 4, emphasis added) Any additional request for

23

modification of the schedule “must be made by written motion and will be granted only for good

24

cause.” (Id.) Previously, the parties stipulated for an extension of thirty-days for Plaintiff to file her

25

opening brief. (Docs. 13, 14) As a result, any additional requests were be filed by written motion, with

26

the support of good cause. (See Doc. 6 at 4) Accordingly, the Court construes the stipulation for an

27
1

28

Nancy A. Berryhill is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Nancy A. Berryhill is substituted for her predecessor as the defendant in this action.

1

1
2

extension of time to be a motion by Defendant to amend the Scheduling Order.
In making the request to amend the schedule, Defendant fails to identify any reason to support

3

the requested extension. (See Doc. 20) Consequently, the Court is unable to find that good cause exists

4

to support the request. However, the request was filed only three days before the brief was due, and

5

Plaintiff does not oppose modification of the briefing schedule. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

6

1. The request for an extension of time is GRANTED IN PART;

7

2. Defendant SHALL file a response to the opening brief no later than March 15, 2018; and

8

3. The parties are reminded that any additional requests for extensions of time SHALL be
supported by good cause.

9
10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 27, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2