Filed: Apr. 15, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 15, 2019
Summary: Order [Docket No. 15] NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the Commissioner's unopposed motion to extend the deadline to respond to Plaintiff's motion to remand by 30 days. Docket No. 15. The underlying reason for the request is counsel's competing litigation obligations. See id. The Court provides by default a healthy briefing schedule in social security appeals, including a cushioned 30-day period for the Commissioner to respond to the Plaintiff's motion to
Summary: Order [Docket No. 15] NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the Commissioner's unopposed motion to extend the deadline to respond to Plaintiff's motion to remand by 30 days. Docket No. 15. The underlying reason for the request is counsel's competing litigation obligations. See id. The Court provides by default a healthy briefing schedule in social security appeals, including a cushioned 30-day period for the Commissioner to respond to the Plaintiff's motion to r..
More
Order
[Docket No. 15]
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is the Commissioner's unopposed motion to extend the deadline to respond to Plaintiff's motion to remand by 30 days. Docket No. 15. The underlying reason for the request is counsel's competing litigation obligations. See id.
The Court provides by default a healthy briefing schedule in social security appeals, including a cushioned 30-day period for the Commissioner to respond to the Plaintiff's motion to remand. See Docket No. 9 at 3. "The Court is cognizant of the difficulties in managing `competing workload demands,' but it appears to have become a matter of routine for the Commissioner to point to such issues in seeking extensions." Betten v. Berryhill, Case No. 2:18-cv-00536-KJD-NJK, Docket No. 24 (D. Nev. Dec. 06, 2018).1 Bluntly put, having an attorney take on more work than she can handle is not good cause for an extension. See, e.g., Olesczuk v. Citizens One Home Loans, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 153342, at *6 n.3 (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 2016) (citing Greene v. Alhambra Hosp. Med. Ctr., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 72697, at *3 (D. Nev. June 3, 2015)). Government attorneys are not immune from that basic proposition. "This issue needs to be rectified, as the Court will not continue to indulge such requests ad infinitum." Betten, Docket No. 24.
The Commissioner's counsel's overly heavy workload is not good cause for any extension, let alone a 30-day extension. As a one-time courtesy, the Court will extend the deadline to respond to Plaintiff's motion to April 25, 2019. As it has before, the Court also orders as follows:
the Commissioner should not expect that the Court will grant future requests based on the apparent over-staffing of [] attorneys. Within 7 days of the issuance of this order, counsel shall file a proof of service indicating that she has provided a copy of this order to Deborah Lee Stachel, Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX.
Betten, Docket No. 24.
Accordingly, the Commissioner's motion to extend is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
