Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01676/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01676-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

-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

KATHLEEN BETHANY PRICE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:15-cv-01676-SAB

ORDER RE STIPULATION FOR AN 

EXTENSION OF TIME

(ECF No. 15)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective 

counsel of record, that the time for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment be extended 30 days to and including October 12, 2016. This is Defendant’s second 

request for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s motion. Defense counsel needs the 

additional time to further review the file and prepare a response in this matter due to a heavy 

workload, including a Ninth Circuit case and several other district court cases as well as other 

substantive work in the areas of bankruptcy and civil rights, despite due diligence. 

The parties further stipulate that the remaining dates in the Court’s Scheduling Order 

shall be modified accordingly.

Defense counsel apologizes to the Court for any inconvenience caused by this delay. 

Case 1:15-cv-01676-SAB Document 16 Filed 09/13/16 Page 1 of 3
-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

Respectfully submitted,

Date: August 29, 2016 NEWEL LAW

By: /s/ Asim H. Modi for Melissa Newel*

Melissa Newel

*Authorized by email on August 29, 2016

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Date: August 29, 2016 PHILLIP A. TALBERT

Acting United States Attorney

DEBORAH LEE STACHEL

Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX

Social Security Administration

By: /s/ Asim H. Modi

ASIM H. MODI

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Defendant

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:15-cv-01676-SAB Document 16 Filed 09/13/16 Page 2 of 3
-3-

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

ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant shall file an opposition to Plaintiff’s opening brief on or before

October 12, 2016; and

2. Plaintiff’s reply, if any, shall be filed on or before October 31, 2016.

However, the parties are advised that due to the impact of social security cases on the 

Court’s docket and the Court’s desire to have cases decided in an expedient manner, requests for 

modification of the briefing scheduling will not routinely be granted and will only be granted 

upon a showing of good cause. Further, requests to modify the briefing schedule that are made 

on the eve of a deadline will be looked upon with disfavor and may be denied absent good cause 

for the delay in seeking an extension. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01676-SAB Document 16 Filed 09/13/16 Page 3 of 3