Dutko v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 17

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART Defendant's 16 Third MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Commissioner of Social Security., ( Defendant Response and Motion due by 9/25/2015 at 5:00pm, Plaintiff Reply due by 10/6/2015)**NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED**--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBIN R. DUTKO,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:15-cv-10698
District Judge Bernard A. Friedman
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
THIRD MOTION FOR EXTENSION (DE 16) AND SETTING A BRIEFING
SCHEDULE
Plaintiff, Robin R. Dutko, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and
1383(c)(3) for a review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
denying her application for supplemental security income. (DE 1.) The Court
issued a briefing schedule on June 15, 2015 (DE 11) and Plaintiff timely filed her
motion for summary judgment on July 8, 2015 (DE 12). Defendant’s response and
cross-motion for summary judgment was initially due on August 7, 2015. On that
date, Defendant filed an unopposed motion to extend the deadline until September
8, 2015. (DE 13.) The Court granted Defendant’s motion on August 10, 2015. On
September 8, 2015, however, Defendant filed a second motion for extension of
time, seeking to extend her deadline until September 22, 2015 and noting that “no

further extensions [were] anticipated.” (DE 14.) The Court granted the motion the
same day. (DE 15.)
For the third time, on the date her brief was due, Defendant filed a motion
for extension of time. In the instant motion, she seeks an additional fourteen days
in which to file her response and cross-motion for summary judgment. (DE 16.)
Defendant asserts that an extension is necessary to allow her time to “determine if
remand is warranted in this case.” (Id. at 1-2.) In addition, Defendant’s counsel
summarizes the large geographical area covered by her office and asserts that the
Court may grant an extension pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1).
The Court is informed that Plaintiff opposes the motion, and quite frankly, can
hardly blame her.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), the Court may extend the
deadline when good cause is shown. A party shows good cause by demonstrating
a ‘“reasonable justification’ for its failure to complete the requested task within the
time prescribed.” Rainey v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, No. 11-12520, 2011 WL
4954154, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 18, 2011) (quoting Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348,
357 (6th Cir. 2001)).
Here, Defendant fails to show good cause to justify the grant of a third
extension of time in which to file her motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed
her motion for summary judgment on July 8, 2015. Defendant has therefore had

2

two and a half months to “determine if remand is warranted in this case.” She does
not offer a reasonable justification for her failure to complete the task within the
time prescribed, and instead describes the large area covered by her counsel.
While the Court is not unsympathetic to Defendant’s counsel’s caseload, “the
normal press of business certainly does not rise to [the good cause] standard.” Id.
at *2. Moreover, the question of whether “remand is warranted” is essentially the
question of whether the appeal has merit, or conversely, whether the Commissioner
can justify defending the ALJ’s decision. The Commissioner certainly should have
been able to figure out the answer to this question by now, even if the demands of
a large caseload make it difficult to fully draft a brief on the merits.
However, with some hesitation and in an effort to ensure this case is decided
on its merits, the Court will grant Defendant a very brief extension in which to file
her motion. Accordingly, Defendant must file her motion for summary judgment
ON OR BEFORE FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2015 at 5:00 P.M. Plaintiff may
file a reply to Defendant’s motion ON OR BEFORE TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6,
2015.
Defendant is cautioned that no further extensions will be granted to her in
this matter, and further cautioned that in future cases even short third extensions—
particularly on the basis of a need to determine if “remand is warranted” and filed
on the actual due date—are extremely unlikely.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2015

s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I hereby Certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on September 22, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

4