Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01665/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01665-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:402 Social Security Benefits

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On June 8, 2020, the parties stipulated for Plaintiff to have an additional thirty days to serve a 

confidential letter brief. Notably, the Scheduling Order allows for a single extension of thirty days by 

the stipulation of the parties (Doc. 5 at 3), which was previously used by Plaintiff. (Docs. 11, 12)

Beyond the single extension 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 3) This is now the second

extension requested by Plaintiff by stipulation, which the Court construes to be a motion to amend the 

Court’s scheduling order. (See id.)

Jonathan Pena, counsel for Plaintiff, asserts the additional time is necessary because he is 

operating “with a significantly reduced level of support” because of “the ongoing pandemic with 

COVID-19 and the various executive orders.” (Doc. 13 at 1-2) In addition, Mr. Pena reports:

[T]he week of 05/24/2020, Plaintiff’s Counsel had 14 administrative hearings, 1 reply 

brief, 1 merits brief and 2 opening briefs due. The week of 05/31/2020, Plaintiff’s 

counsel had 23 administrative hearings, 1 haring preparation appointment[] with 

claimant, 1 reply brief, 1 motion for summary judgment and 4 opening briefs. The

DAVINA RONQUILLO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-1665 - JLT 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR A FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. 13)

Case 1:19-cv-01665-JLT Document 14 Filed 06/09/20 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

week of 6/1/2020, Counsel has 21 administrative hearings and 16 on the week of 

6/8/2020. 

(Doc. 13 at 2) Finally, Mr. Pena notes the Commissioner does not oppose the requested extension and 

stipulated to it on June 8, 2020. (Id.) The Court notes Counsel also reports a reduction in staff due to 

the ongoing pandemic guidelines, and the Commissioner does not oppose the request. Further, it does 

not appear the Commissioner would suffer any prejudice as a result of the additional extension of time. 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The request for a second extension of time (Doc. 13) is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff SHALL serve a confidential brief no later than July 10, 2020; and

3. Plaintiff is informed that no further extensions of time will be granted for service of this

brief without a showing of exceptionally good cause, which will not include Counsel’s 

workload.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01665-JLT Document 14 Filed 06/09/20 Page 2 of 2