Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00191/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00191-8/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEY ADNEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00191-NONE-SAB

ORDER RE STIPULATION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME

(ECF No. 28)

Pursuant to a stipulated extension for Plaintiff to file an opening brief, Defendant’s brief 

was to be filed on November 27, 2019. (ECF No. 14.) On November 27, 2019, pursuant to a 

stipulated request, the Court granted an extension for Defendant to file the brief until January 20, 

2020. (ECF Nos. 19, 20.) On January 17, 2020, the parties filed another stipulation for an 

extension for Defendant to file the brief, and on January 21, 2020, the Court granted the 

extension and Defendant’s responsive brief was due to be filed on February 21, 2020. (ECF 

Nos. 21, 22.) On the day of the deadline, February 21, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation 

extending the deadline by only three days, until February 24, 2020. (ECF No. 24.) On February 

24, 2020, pursuant to the stipulation, the Court granted the request and extended the deadline. 

(ECF No. 26.) The same day, February 24, 2020, after the undersigned signed the order granting 

the extension, but prior to the order being entered on the docket, the parties filed another 

stipulation requesting a further extension of the deadline for another three days only, until 

Case 1:19-cv-00191-DAD-SAB Document 29 Filed 02/28/20 Page 1 of 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

2

February 27, 2020. (ECF No. 25.) Counsel stated good cause existed because a wrist injury has 

continually caused significant pain, and due to the injury, unanticipated leave, a heavy caseload, 

and shortened staff, counsel requested the additional time and apologized for the belated request. 

On February 25, 2020, the Court granted the request, and stated that while the Court appreciated 

the effort to request the shortest extension possible, the repeated requests within a short amount 

of time cause unnecessary work for the Court and recommended in the future that counsel 

request a somewhat more reasonable extension given the foreseeable need for a further 

extension. (ECF No. 27.) 

On February 27, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation to extend the deadline for Defendant 

to file the brief, again by only three days, until March 3, 2020. (ECF No. 28.) Counsel states 

good cause exists because counsel was out of the office due to ongoing health issues and had a 

dental emergency that she suffered on February 25, 2020, and is expected to be on leave the 

remainder of the week. (Id.) 

The Court reminds the parties 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 or after will be looked upon with disfavor and may be denied absent 

good cause for the delay in seeking an extension. If done after a deadline, the party seeking an 

extension must show additional good cause why the matter was filed late with the request for 

nunc pro tunc. The Court shall grant the stipulated request and will afford Defendant a longer 

extension than requested with the hope that no other extension shall prove necessary. The Court 

will be disinclined to entertain any further request absent a clear showing of good cause. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:19-cv-00191-DAD-SAB Document 29 Filed 02/28/20 Page 2 of 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

3

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

1. Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s opening brief shall be filed on or before March 

6, 2020; and

2. Plaintiff’s reply, if any, shall be filed on or before March 23, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00191-DAD-SAB Document 29 Filed 02/28/20 Page 3 of 3