ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. 18)

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

On March 11, 2019, Defendant filed a stipulation of the parties for the Commissioner to have a 60-day extension of time to file a response to Plaintiff's opening brief. (Doc. 18) The Scheduling Order permits a single thirty-day extension by the stipulation of parties (Doc. 5 at 4), and this is the first extension requested by either party.

Beyond the extension of thirty days by stipulation, "requests to modify [the scheduling] order must be made by written motion and will be granted only for good cause." (Doc. 5 at 4) Accordingly, the Court construes the stipulation of the parties to be a motion by Defendant to amend the Scheduling Order. Carolyn Chen, Defendant's counsel, asserts the extension is necessary because she has a "backlog of district court cases and other matters, after recovering from sickness that caused her to be incapacitated and unable to work for multiple days." (Doc. 18 at 1) Ms. Chen reports that she "has shifted and is continuing to shift many of her cases to avoid missing the deadlines of her cases and minimize further delay of her older cases to which she is giving priority where possible." (Id. at 2) She asserts that she also had "unanticipated matters . . . require her immediate attention," which took additional time way from actions such as the matter now before the Court. (Id.)

Notably, Plaintiff does not oppose the request for an extension of sixty days. (Doc. 18 at 2) Further, it does not appear Plaintiff would suffer any prejudice by the extension requested. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

IT IS SO ORDERED.