Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Rodriguez v. Colvin, 1:15-CV-01780-SKO. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20161122896 Visitors: 4
Filed: Nov. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 21, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE; ORDER SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . TO THE HONORABLE SHEILA K. OBERTO, MAGISTRATE JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT: Plaintiff Belinda Rodriguez ("Plaintiff") and defendant Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security ("Defendant"), through their undersigned counsel of record, hereby stipulate, subject to the approval of the Court, to extend the time forPlaintiff to filePlaintiff's Opening Brief to November 18, 2016; and that Defendant s
More

STIPULATION TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE; ORDER

TO THE HONORABLE SHEILA K. OBERTO, MAGISTRATE JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT:

Plaintiff Belinda Rodriguez ("Plaintiff") and defendant Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security ("Defendant"), through their undersigned counsel of record, hereby stipulate, subject to the approval of the Court, to extend the time forPlaintiff to filePlaintiff's Opening Brief to November 18, 2016; and that Defendant shall have until December 19, 2016, to file her opposition. Any reply by plaintiff will continue to be due December 20, 2016.

This Court is aware that Counsel's Spouse battled Stage IV breast cancer which metastasized initially to her liver and continued to progress with tumors in her lungs, spine and brain. After exhausting all known chemotherapy treatments over 18 months ago and surviving on willful determination and profound faith alone Counsel's wife has succumbed to her illness. On September 30, 2016 Counsel gently held his wife as she relinquished her fight and passed away. Counsel required the time to deal with providing the appropriate respect to his spouse and assisting his nine year old son and seven year old daughter deal with their loss.

Counsel notes that the modified briefing schedule continues to require any reply brief to be filed by the same December 20, 2016 date as previously set by this Court. Consequently, the modification results in a reduction of time for Counsel to prepare any reply and does not extend the time for this matter to be submitted to the Court for decision. Counsel sincerely apologizes to the court for any inconvenience this may have had upon it or its staff.

ORDER

The Court is in receipt of the parties' stipulation to extend the time in which for Plaintiff to serve her opening brief until November 18, 2016, which was filed the same day. (Doc. 15.) The Court notes that Plaintiff's opening brief was due on November 3, 2016, per the Court's order entered September 29, 2016. (Doc. 14.) The parties' stipulated request for an extension of time is, therefore, untimely.

The Court finds, however, that the parties have shown good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) for modifying the Scheduling Order (Doc. 5), and accordingly GRANTS the parties' request and MODIFIES the Scheduling Order as follows:

1. Plaintiff is permitted to file her opening brief on November 19, 2016;1 2. Defendant shall file a responsive brief no later than December 19, 2016; and 3. Plaintiff may file an optional reply brief no later than December 20, 2016, as previously ordered. (Doc. 14.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Although the parties requested that Plaintiff's opening brief be filed by November 18, 2016, the Court notes that Plaintiff did not file her brief until one day later, on November 19. The Court cautions the parties that, absent good cause shown, it will not grant any further briefing extensions in this case.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer