Smith v. Berryhill, 2:17-cv-01168-AC. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180420811
Visitors: 10
Filed: Apr. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 19, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective counsel of record, that the time for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be extended until June 8, 2018. This is Defendant's first request for an extension of time to respond. Defense counsel requires additional time to fully review the administrative record and consider the government's
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective counsel of record, that the time for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be extended until June 8, 2018. This is Defendant's first request for an extension of time to respond. Defense counsel requires additional time to fully review the administrative record and consider the government's p..
More
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective counsel of record, that the time for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be extended until June 8, 2018. This is Defendant's first request for an extension of time to respond. Defense counsel requires additional time to fully review the administrative record and consider the government's position due schedule conflicts, as explained in the attached declaration. Plaintiff's counsel does not object and agrees that all subsequent deadlines should be accordingly extended.
ORDER
APPROVED AND SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
