Price v. Colvin, 1:15-cv-01676-SAB. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20160914a94
Visitors: 7
Filed: Sep. 13, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 13, 2016
Summary: ORDER RE STIPULATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF No. 15) STANLEY A. BOONE , 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 30 days to and including October 12, 2016. This is Defendant's second request for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's motion. Defense counsel needs the additional time to further review the file
Summary: ORDER RE STIPULATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF No. 15) STANLEY A. BOONE , 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 30 days to and including October 12, 2016. This is Defendant's second request for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's motion. Defense counsel needs the additional time to further review the file a..
More
ORDER RE STIPULATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
(ECF No. 15)
STANLEY A. BOONE, 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 30 days to and including October 12, 2016. This is Defendant's second request for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's motion. Defense counsel needs the additional time to further review the file and prepare a response in this matter due to a heavy workload, including a Ninth Circuit case and several other district court cases as well as other substantive work in the areas of bankruptcy and civil rights, despite due diligence.
The parties further stipulate that the remaining dates in the Court's Scheduling Order shall be modified accordingly.
Defense counsel apologizes to the Court for any inconvenience caused by this delay.
ORDER
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant shall file an opposition to Plaintiff's opening brief on or before October 12, 2016; and
2. Plaintiff's reply, if any, shall be filed on or before October 31, 2016.
However, the parties are advised that due to the impact of social security cases on the Court's docket and the Court's desire to have cases decided in an expedient manner, requests for modification of the briefing scheduling will not routinely be granted and will only be granted upon a showing of good cause. Further, requests to modify the briefing schedule that are made on the eve of a deadline will be looked upon with disfavor and may be denied absent good cause for the delay in seeking an extension.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
