Mills v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 15

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/12/13 DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING 14 Stipulation and Proposed Order filed by Anthony J Mills. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY J. MILLS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-0899-KJN

v.

ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

16

Plaintiff filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order For Extension Of Time To File Motion on

17
18

November 6, 2013.1 (ECF No. 14.) However, plaintiff’s filing states only that he need

19

“additional time to fully research the issues presented.” (ECF No. 14 at 2.) This is not a valid

20

basis upon which to request an extension. Disconcertingly, it appears that plaintiff’s counsel

21

waited until after a deadline before asking the court to extend that same deadline. E.D. Cal. L.R.

22

144(d) (“Counsel shall seek to obtain a necessary extension from the Court or from other counsel

23

or parties in an action as soon as the need for an extension becomes apparent. Requests for Court

24

approved extensions brought on the required filing date for the pleading or other document are

25

looked upon with disfavor.”). Here, the administrative record was electronically filed on

26

September 4, 2013 (see E.D. Cal. L.R. 135), such that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

27
28

1

This case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule
302(c)(15).
1

1

should have been filed on October 19, 2013. (See ECF Nos. 13 (Notice of Lodging Social

2

Security Administrative Transcript; 7 at 2 (Scheduling Order providing that plaintiff’s summary

3

judgment briefing is to be filed 45 days after plaintiff is served with a copy of the administrative

4

record).) Yet the stipulation requesting an extension of time was not filed until November 6,

5

2013. Further, the events giving rise to the requested extension appear primarily workload-

6

related, such as the vague need to “fully research” issues. These workload-related hurdles were

7

presumably apparent to counsel before the filing deadline, and plaintiff’s counsel offers no

8

explanation regarding the delay in seeking the court’s approval of the extension.

9

Accordingly, the undersigned denies the stipulation without prejudice to refiling, and any

10

such refiling should include a full explanation of the basis for the requested extension and the

11

reason for the apparent delay in seeking it.

12

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

Plaintiff’s Stipulation For Extension Of Time To File Motion (ECF No. 14) is denied

14
15
16

without prejudice to refiling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 12, 2013

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