Rojas v. Astrue

Filing 17

ORDER granting in part plaintiff's 15 unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff is granted a 30-day extension starting from today. Signed by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler.(GB)

Download PDF
01 02 03 04 05 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 06 07 08 REBECCA ROJAS, 09 10 11 12 13 14 ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________ ) CASE NO. C12-1639-MAT ORDER GRANTING LIMITED EXTENSION OF TIME OF REMAINING BRIEFING SCHEDULE Plaintiff filed the parties’ first unopposed motion for extension of time (Dkt. 15), 15 requesting a 60-day extension of the due date in which to file his responsive brief. Plaintiff 16 offers no specific reason for such an unusually long extension. Having considered the 17 stipulation, and the entire docket in the case, the Court hereby GRANTS an extension of the 18 briefing schedule, but declines to use the dates requested by the parties. A 60-day extension 19 would adversely affect the Court’s ability to decide the case in a timely manner. The Court 20 therefore grants a 30-day extension from today, with the new deadlines as follows: 21 22 ORDER GRANTING LIMITED EXTENSION OF TIME OF REMAINING BRIEFING SCHEDULE PAGE -1 01 Plaintiff’s Opening Brief: February 25, 2013 02 Defendant’s Responsive Brief: March 25, 2013 03 Plaintiff’s optional Reply Brief: April 8, 2013 04 The parties should note that any extension request after this one would impact the ability 05 of defendant to request an extension when the responsive brief is due, and should plan 06 accordingly. 07 DATED this 24th day of January, 2013. 08 09 A 10 Mary Alice Theiler United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER GRANTING LIMITED EXTENSION OF TIME OF REMAINING BRIEFING SCHEDULE PAGE -2

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?