CABRAL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 2:14-cv-0963-KJN. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20141209674
Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 08, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 08, 2014
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. The court previously granted plaintiff an extension to file his motion for summary judgment no later than November 25, 2014. (ECF No. 16.) Several days after that deadline, on December 3, 2014, plaintiff filed his motion for summary judgment, along with a stipulation to retroactively modify the briefing schedule. (ECF Nos. 17, 18.) The stipulation merely indicates that plaintiff needed an extension to properly address the issues within the administra
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. The court previously granted plaintiff an extension to file his motion for summary judgment no later than November 25, 2014. (ECF No. 16.) Several days after that deadline, on December 3, 2014, plaintiff filed his motion for summary judgment, along with a stipulation to retroactively modify the briefing schedule. (ECF Nos. 17, 18.) The stipulation merely indicates that plaintiff needed an extension to properly address the issues within the administrat..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
The court previously granted plaintiff an extension to file his motion for summary judgment no later than November 25, 2014. (ECF No. 16.) Several days after that deadline, on December 3, 2014, plaintiff filed his motion for summary judgment, along with a stipulation to retroactively modify the briefing schedule. (ECF Nos. 17, 18.)
The stipulation merely indicates that plaintiff needed an extension to properly address the issues within the administrative record. (ECF No. 18.) That reason, in itself, is not a sufficient reason to seek a retroactive extension of time. Counsel entirely fails to explain why he could not have timely sought an extension on such grounds prior to the expiration of the deadline. Here, because the Commissioner has stipulated to the retroactive extension, and because no significant prejudice resulted, the court will approve the requested modification to the briefing schedule. However, counsel is cautioned that future requests for retroactive extensions of time will be viewed with disfavor, and may result in the imposition of any appropriate sanctions, absent a showing of exceptional circumstances that could not have been anticipated.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The stipulation for modification of the briefing schedule (ECF No. 18) is APPROVED.
2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is deemed timely filed on December 3, 2014.
3. The Commissioner shall file any opposition no later than January 7, 2015.
4. Plaintiff shall file any reply brief no later than January 19, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
