Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00852/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00852-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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 3, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation for an extension of time for Plaintiff to file 

an opening brief in the action. Specifically, the parties stipulated “to extend the time for Plaintiff to 

file [an] Opening brief to April 7, 2017.” (Doc. 10 at 2)

Notably, the Scheduling Order permits a thirty-day extension by the stipulation of parties (Doc. 

3 at 4), which has not been used by the parties. Because Defendant served its response to Plaintiff’s 

confidential letter brief on January 3, 2017 (Doc. 9), Plaintiff’s opening brief was due on February 6, 

2017. (See Doc. 3 at 2) (directing Plaintiff to file an opening brief within thirty days of the date of 

service if Defendant did not agree to a remand) Thus, Plaintiff seeks an extension of sixty days to file 

the opening brief.

As indicated in the Scheduling Order, any request for modification of the briefing schedule 

beyond the thirty-days permitted by stipulation “must be made by written motion and will only be 

granted for good cause.” (Doc. 3 at 4) Plaintiff contends that the extension “is needed in order to 

ROBBIN DEE ROWE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-0852- JLT 

ORDER GRANTING THE REQUEST FOR AN 

EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. 10)

Case 1:16-cv-00852-JLT Document 11 Filed 02/21/17 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

properly address the issues within the administrative record in this matter.” (Doc. 10 at 2) Because 

Defendant does not oppose the request, the Court ORDERS:

1. The request for an extension of time is GRANTED; 

2. Plaintiff SHALL file an opening brief no later than April 7, 2017; and

3. Plaintiff is advised that no further extensions will be granted without a showing of 

exceptional good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00852-JLT Document 11 Filed 02/21/17 Page 2 of 2