Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00165/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00165-4/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 17, 2020, the Commissioner filed a stipulation of the parties for an extension of 

time, requesting the deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s opening brief be extended to February 28, 2020. 

(Doc. 15) The Scheduling Order allows for a single extension of thirty days by the stipulation of the 

parties (Doc. 5 at 4), which was previously used by Plaintiff in this action. (Docs. 8, 9) 

Plaintiff filed his opening brief on November 5, 2019. (Doc. 14) Thereafter, the Commissioner 

requested—and received—an extension of time to file response, extending the deadline to January 17, 

2020. (Doc. 16) At that time, the Court advised the Commissioner that “no further extensions of time 

will be granted without the filing of a motion supported by exceptionally good cause.” (Id. at 2)

The Commissioner now seeks a second extension of time of 42 days to respond to the opening 

brief, asserting the requirement for “exceptionally good cause” is satisfied due to an injury counsel 

suffered on January 4, 2020. (Doc. 17) Tina Naicker, counsel for the Commissioner, reports that she 

“was in the process of moving residences and sprained her left wrist, rendering her incapable of using 

OSCAR ALCARAZ, JR.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-165 - JLT 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST FOR A THIRD EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. 17)

Case 1:19-cv-00165-JLT Document 18 Filed 01/31/20 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

her left (dominant) hand for over a week.” (Id. at 1) Ms. Naicker has provided a copy of a note from 

her physician indicating that Ms. Naicker needed to “allow left wrist rest for one week through 

1/10/20.” (Doc. 17-1 at 4) Ms. Naicker reports that she continues to suffer pain and is “in the process 

of obtaining further evaluation of my wrist/hand injury in the next couple weeks.” (Id. at 2, ¶ 3)

Notably, however, Ms. Naicker fails to explain why an extension of six weeks is required. The 

note from her physician indicated that she needed to rest her dominate wrist through January 10, 2020, 

and the motion now pending before the Court was filed a full week after the expiration of this rest 

period. Though Ms. Naicker reports she continues to suffer pain and was “advised to continue resting 

my left hand/wrist as much as possible until further evaluation,” there is no explanation as to why she 

believes the six-week period requested is appropriate. Because the Court is unable to find support for 

the requested six-week period, the request will be granted in part. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The request for a third extension of time (Doc. 17) is GRANTED IN PART; and

2. The Commissioner SHALL file a response to the opening brief no later than 

February 14, 2020; and

3. The Commissioner is advised no further extensions of time will be granted without the 

filing of a motion supported by exceptionally good cause, which shall not include 

counsel’s workload.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00165-JLT Document 18 Filed 01/31/20 Page 2 of 2