Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 16

STIPULATION and ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S OPENING BRIEF, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 9/26/2018. (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: [phone]
Facsimile: 415-744-0134
E-mail: [e-mail]

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

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner Of Social Security,
Defendant.

19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:17-cv-01634-SKO
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO
RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S OPENING
BRIEF
(Doc. 15)

20
21

ROSEMARY TAYLOR (Plaintiff) and NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting

22

Commissioner Of Social Security (Defendant or the Commissioner), hereby stipulate, subject to

23

the approval of the Court, to a five-day extension of time for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s

24

Opening Brief (Docket Number 12). This is the second request for an extension of time sought

25

in the above-captioned matter. The current deadline was September 24, 2018, and the new

26

deadline would be September 28, 2018. Defendant requests this additional time because the

27

Commissioner has agreed to voluntarily remand this case without further briefing.

28

////

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: September 25, 2018

By: /s/ Lawrence D. Rohlfing*
LAWRENCE D. ROHLFING
Attorney for Plaintiff
[*As authorized by e-mail on September 25, 2018

Dated: September 25, 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
16
17

ORDER

18
19

Pursuant to the parties’ previous stipulation for an extension of time (Doc. 13) and the Court’s

20

order modifying the Scheduling Order in this case, Defendant’s responsive brief was due to be filed no

21

later September 24, 2018. (Doc. 14.) The parties filed the above “Stipulation to Extend Time for

22

Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff’s Opening Brief” on September 25, 2018—one day after Defendant’s

23

answering brief deadline expired. (Doc. 15.)

24

The Court may extend time to act after the deadline has expired because of “excusable neglect.”

25

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Here, although the Stipulation demonstrates good cause under to support the

26

request for extension of time (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)), no such excusable neglect has been

27

articulated—much less shown—to justify the untimeliness of the request.

28

deficiency, given the absence of bad faith or prejudice to Plaintiff (as evidenced by her agreement to the
2

Notwithstanding this

1
2
3

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,
Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258–59 (9th Cir. 2010), the Court GRANTS the parties’ stipulated request. The

4
parties are cautioned that future post hoc requests for extensions of time will be viewed with
5
6

disfavor.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant shall have an extension of time, to and including

7
8
9

September 28, 2018, by which to file her answering brief. All other deadlines set forth in the Scheduling
Order (Doc. 5) are modified accordingly.

10
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
15

Dated:

September 26, 2018

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

.