Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
14
STIPULATION and ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S OPENING BRIEF, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/28/2018. (Kusamura, W)
1
7
MCGREGOR W. SCOTT
United States Attorney
DEBORAH LEE STACHEL
Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX
Social Security Administration
SHARON LAHEY
Special Assistant United States Attorney
160 Spear Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: 415-977-8963
Facsimile: 415-744-0134
E-mail: Sharon.Lahey@ssa.gov
8
Attorneys for DEFENDANT
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
FRESNO
13
14
ROSEMARY TAYLOR,
15
Plaintiff,
16
vs.
17
18
19
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:17-cv-01634-SKO
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR
DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFF’S OPENING BRIEF;
ORDER
(Doc. 13)
20
21
ROSEMARY TAYLOR (Plaintiff) and NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner
22
Of Social Security (Defendant or the Commissioner), hereby stipulate, subject to the approval of
23
the Court, to a 30-day extension of time for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s Opening Brief
24
(Docket Number 12). This is the first request for an extension of time sought in the above-
25
captioned matter. The current deadline was August 24, 2018, and the new deadline would be
26
September 24, 2018. Defendant requests this additional time due to an inadvertent calendaring
27
error and workload. The undersigned currently has 11 oppositions to motions for summary
28
judgment or opening briefs and one oral argument due before the requested deadline.
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; ORDER
CASE NO.: 1:17-cv-01634-SKO
1
2
The parties further stipulate that the scheduling order in the above-captioned matter be
modified accordingly.
3
Respectfully submitted,
4
LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE D. ROHLFING
5
6
Dated: August 27, 2018
By: /s/ Cyrus Safa*
CYRUS SAFA
Attorney for Plaintiff
[*As authorized by e-mail on August 27, 2018]
Dated: August 27, 2018
MCGREGOR W. SCOTT
United States Attorney
DEBORAH LEE STACHEL
Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
By:
/s/ Sharon Lahey
SHARON LAHEY
Assistant Regional Counsel
14
15
ORDER
16
17
Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order, Defendant’s responsive brief was due to be filed no
18
later August 24, 2018. (Doc. 5.) The parties filed the above “Stipulation to Extend Time for Defendant
19
to Respond to Plaintiff’s Opening Brief” on August 27, 2018—three days after Defendant’s answering
20
brief deadline expired. (Doc. 13.)
21
The Court may extend time to act after the deadline has expired because of “excusable neglect.”
22
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Here, although the Stipulation demonstrates good cause under to support the
23
24
25
26
27
request for extension of time (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)), no such excusable neglect has been
articulated—much less shown—to justify the untimeliness of the request.
Notwithstanding this
deficiency, given the absence of bad faith or prejudice to Plaintiff (as evidenced by her agreement to the
extension of time after the deadline), and in view of the liberal construction of Fed. R. Civ. 6(b)(1) to
effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits, see Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures,
28
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; ORDER
CASE NO.: 1:17-cv-01634-SKO
1
2
Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258–59 (9th Cir. 2010), the Court GRANTS the parties’ stipulated request. The
parties are cautioned that future post hoc requests for extensions of time will be viewed with
3
disfavor.
4
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant shall have an extension of time, to and including
5
6
7
8
September 24, 2018, by which to file her answering brief. All other deadlines set forth in the
Scheduling Order (Doc. 5) are modified accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10
Dated:
August 28, 2018
/s/
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; ORDER
CASE NO.: 1:17-cv-01634-SKO
.
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?