Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00608/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00608-2/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 February 14, 2020, the Commissioner filed a stipulation of the parties for an additional 

extension of 14 days to file a response to Plaintiff’s opening brief. (Doc. 17) The Scheduling Order 

allows for a single extension of thirty days by the stipulation of the parties (Doc. 6 at 3), which was 

previously used by the Commissioner. (Doc. 15) Notably, at that time, the Court granted the 

Commissioner’s request for an extension of forty-five days. (Doc. 16)

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. 6 at 3) Accordingly, the 

Court construes the stipulation of the parties to be a motion by the Commissioner to amend the 

Scheduling Order. The Commissioner contends the extension in necessary due to counsel’s workload, 

reporting that “counsel has worked on over 30 district court cases” since January 7, 2020. (Doc. 17 at 

1-2) Counsel asserts, “Additional time is required to review the record, to evaluate the numerous 

issues raised in Plaintiff’s brief, to determine whether options exist for settlement, and if not, to 

CHARITY MICHELLE AKIN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-0608 - JLT

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR A SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME 

(Doc. 17)

Case 1:19-cv-00608-JLT Document 18 Filed 02/19/20 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

prepare Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s motion.” (Id. at 2) Further, the Commissioner reports that 

Plaintiff does not oppose the request for an additional extension of time. (Id. at 2)

Based upon the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, the Court ORDERS: 

1. Defendant’s request for a second extension of time is GRANTED; and

2. Defendant SHALL file a response to the opening brief no later than March 9, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00608-JLT Document 18 Filed 02/19/20 Page 2 of 2