Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00285/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00285-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:416 Denial of 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 January 20, 2016, Defendant filed a second stipulation of the parties to extend time for 

Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s opening brief. (Doc. 16) Importantly, the scheduling order in this 

action allows for “a single thirty (30) day extension” by stipulation of the parties. (Doc. 6 at 4, 

emphasis added) This extension was used previously by Defendant, who requested an extension of 

time on December 20, 2015. (Docs. 14-15) Beyond the single thirty-day extension, “requests to modify 

[the scheduling] order must be made by written motion and will be granted only for good cause.” (Doc. 

6 at 4) Further, the parties are cautioned that “[r]equests for modification of th[e] briefing schedule will 

not routinely be granted. (Id., emphasis in original) Therefore, the Court construes the stipulation of

the parties to be a motion by Defendant for modification of the Court’s Scheduling Order.

Here, Defendant’s counsel, Mr. Chen, asserts the further extension of time is necessary 

“because of a very heavy accumulated workload due to a two week absence from the office over the 

holiday season.” (Doc. 16 at 1) Plaintiff does not oppose the second extension requested. 

LAURIE KAY WELLS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00285- JLT 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. 16)

Case 1:15-cv-00285-JLT Document 17 Filed 01/22/16 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s request for an extension of time is GRANTED IN PART; 

2. Defendant SHALL file a response to Plaintiff’s opening brief within fourteen days of 

the date of service of this order; and

Respondent is advised that no further extensions will be entertained absent a showing of 

exceptional good cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00285-JLT Document 17 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 2