Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00806/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00806-7/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

TIM CORONADO, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00806-AWI-SAB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE OPPOSITION

TO PLAINTIFF’S OPENING BRIEF

(ECF No. 30)

On August 12, 2016, Defendant filed a stipulation for an extension of time to file the 

opposition to Plaintiff’s opening brief. (ECF No. 28.) In Defendant’s first stipulation for an 

extension of time, Defendant stated that the extension was necessary due to Defendant’s 

counsel’s workload. (ECF No. 28.) On August 15, 2016, the Court granted Defendant an 

extension to September 14, 2016, to file the opposition to Plaintiff’s opening brief. (ECF No. 

29.) 

On September 14, 2016, Defendant filed a stipulation for a second extension of time to 

September 21, 2016, to file the opposition to Plaintiff’s opening brief. (ECF No. 30.) Defendant 

states that an extension is necessary due to workload including a high volume of other disability 

and employment matters. (ECF No. 30.) Defendant has given the same reason in the second 

extension of time as she gave in the first extension of time without any new facts supporting an 

extension of time. Based upon a review of Defendant’s stipulation for a second extension of 

Case 1:15-cv-00806-AWI-SAB Document 31 Filed 09/15/16 Page 1 of 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

2

time, and in light of the fact that Defendant filed the request on the eve of the deadline without 

an explanation for the delay in seeking an extension, Defendant is granted an extension to 

September 16, 2016, to file the opposition to Plaintiff’s opening brief. Plaintiff’s reply, if any, 

shall be filed on or before October 3, 2016.

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s stipulation for a second extension of time to file an opposition to 

Plaintiff’s opening brief is GRANTED IN PART;

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

September 16, 2016; and

3. Plaintiff’s reply, if any, shall be filed on or before October 3, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00806-AWI-SAB Document 31 Filed 09/15/16 Page 2 of 2