Filed: Jun. 30, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 30, 2017
Summary: JOINT STUPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , Magistrate Judge . Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security ("Defendant") respectfully requests that the Court extend the time for Defendant to file her Opposition to Plaintiff's Opening Brief, due on June 12, 2017, by 30 days, through and including July 12, 2017. This is the Commissioner's second request for an extension of time in this matter. Good cause exists for this request. Counsel f
Summary: JOINT STUPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , Magistrate Judge . Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security ("Defendant") respectfully requests that the Court extend the time for Defendant to file her Opposition to Plaintiff's Opening Brief, due on June 12, 2017, by 30 days, through and including July 12, 2017. This is the Commissioner's second request for an extension of time in this matter. Good cause exists for this request. Counsel fo..
More
JOINT STUPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.
Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security ("Defendant") respectfully requests that the Court extend the time for Defendant to file her Opposition to Plaintiff's Opening Brief, due on June 12, 2017, by 30 days, through and including July 12, 2017. This is the Commissioner's second request for an extension of time in this matter.
Good cause exists for this request. Counsel for Defendant was married on June 24, which caused significant additional pressure on counsel's schedule, in combination with a Ninth Circuit answering brief, another summary judgment motion, an EAJA opposition, and a motion to remand. Counsel has an oral merits hearing and an additional three summary judgment motions due in the next two weeks, further necessitating this request for an extension.
This request is made in good faith with no intention to unduly delay the proceedings. Counsel's office conferred with Plaintiff's counsel, who had no objection to this request, on June 27, 2017.
ORDER
Defendant's opposition brief was due on or before June 12, 2017. (Doc. 12.) However, Defendant did not file a timely opposition, and the instant request for an extension of time also is untimely. (Doc. 13.)
Pursuant to Local Rule 144, counsel is required to seek a necessary extension of time "as soon as the need . . . becomes apparent," and requests for Court-approved extensions brought on or after the required filing date "are looked upon with disfavor." L. R. 144(d). Although defense counsel cites a June 24 wedding and deadlines in other cases, counsel provides no explanation as to why the requested extension of time could not be sought prior to June 12, 2017, or prior to counsel's wedding. The Court thus does not find the required good cause for the requested extension of time.
Nonetheless, given both the stipulation of the parties and the interest in resolving cases on their merits, Defendant shall be granted an extension of time to July 12, 2017, in which to file an opposition to Plaintiff's opening brief. All other deadlines set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order shall be modified accordingly. No further extensions of time shall be granted absent a showing of good cause.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
