Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00933/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00933-3/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 (DIWW)

---

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 April 15, 2015, Defendant filed a request for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s 

opening brief. (Doc. 14.) The Scheduling Order permits a single thirty-day extension by the 

stipulation of parties. (Doc. 3 at 4). Any further requests for an extension must be made via a motion 

by the party seeking to amend the briefing schedule, and supported by good cause. (Id.) Because the 

parties previously stipulated for an extension of time in this action (Doc. 7), the Court construes the 

stipulation filed to be a motion by Defendant to amend the Scheduling Order. 

Defendant’s counsel requests the extension “because she is continuing to consider settling this 

matter without further action of the Court.” (Doc. 14 at 1.) Significantly, the Court previously 

granted a thirty-day extension for Defendant to consider settlement on March 5, 2015 (Doc. 12), and 

granted a second extension of fourteen days for the same purpose on April 6, 2015. (Doc. 13.) 

Despite the fact that the Scheduling Order cautioned the parties that requests for modification of “th[e] 

JOSEPH GRIFFIN, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLY W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00933- JLT 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S THIRD 

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. 14)

Case 1:14-cv-00933-JLT Document 15 Filed 04/16/15 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

briefing schedule will not routinely be granted” (Doc. 3 at 4), Defendant failed to comply with the 

Schedule. 

Moreover, the purpose of the confidential letter brief—which Plaintiff served no later than 

December 17, 2014—was for Defendant to be aware of “the relevant issues” in the action and the 

reasons Plaintiff “contends that a remand is warranted.” (See Doc. 3 at 2; Doc. 10.) Therefore, 

Defendant should have been considering the possibility of remand and settlement prior to the filing of 

Plaintiff’s opening brief in the action. Defendant’s counsel fails to demonstrate good cause to further 

continue the briefing schedule in this action. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

 1. Defendant’s third request for an extension of time is (Doc. 14) is DENIED; and

 2. Defendant SHALL serve a response to the opening brief no later than April 24, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 16, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:14-cv-00933-JLT Document 15 Filed 04/16/15 Page 2 of 2