(SS) Nutter v. Commissioner of Social Security, 1:17-cv-00242-JLT. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20171215909
Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 14, 2017
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT A SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . On December 12, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation for a second extension of time for Defendant to file response to Plaintiff's opening brief. (Doc. 19) The Scheduling Order allows for a single extension of thirty days by the stipulation of the parties (Doc. 5 at 4), which was previously used by Defendant. (Docs. 17, 18) Beyond the single extension by stipulation, "requests to modify [the sched
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT A SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . On December 12, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation for a second extension of time for Defendant to file response to Plaintiff's opening brief. (Doc. 19) The Scheduling Order allows for a single extension of thirty days by the stipulation of the parties (Doc. 5 at 4), which was previously used by Defendant. (Docs. 17, 18) Beyond the single extension by stipulation, "requests to modify [the schedu..
More
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT A SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
On December 12, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation for a second extension of time for Defendant to file response to Plaintiff's opening brief. (Doc. 19) The Scheduling Order allows for a single extension of thirty days by the stipulation of the parties (Doc. 5 at 4), which was previously used by Defendant. (Docs. 17, 18)
Beyond the single extension by stipulation, "requests to modify [the scheduling] order must be made by written motion and will be granted only for good cause." (Doc. 5 at 4) Accordingly, the Court construes the stipulation of the parties to be a motion to amend the Scheduling Order. Defendant's counsel asserts the additional extension "needed because the attorney responsible for briefing was recently reassigned this case is still working through a backlog of cases due to having been out on medical leave." (Doc. 19 at 1) Plaintiff does not oppose the request for a further extension, and it does not appear Plaintiff would suffer any prejudice through the delay.
Based upon the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, the Court ORDERS:
1. Defendant's request for a second extension of time is GRANTED; and
2. Defendant SHALL file a response to the opening brief no later than January 12, 2018.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
