Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00819/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00819-1/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 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a stipulation of the parties to extend time for Plaintiff to file 

an opening brief. (Doc. 11) Importantly, the scheduling order in this action allows for “a single thirty 

(30) day extension” by stipulation of the parties. (Doc. 3 at 4, emphasis added) This extension was 

used previously by Plaintiff, who requested an extension of time to prepare a confidential letter brief. 

(Docs. 7-8) Beyond the single thirty-day extension, “requests to modify [the scheduling] order must be 

made by written motion and will be granted only for good cause.” (Doc. 3 at 4) Further, the parties are 

cautioned that “[r]equests for modification of th[e] briefing schedule will not routinely be granted. (Id., 

emphasis in original) Therefore, the Court construes the stipulation of the parties to be a motion by 

Plaintiff for modification of the Court’s Scheduling Order.

Here, the opening brief is currently due February 10, 2016. Plaintiff’s counsel, Ms. Sharon 

Kelly, reports this extension of time is necessary because she “recently attended a California 

LAURA WILKINS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00819- JLT 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. 11)

Case 1:15-cv-00819-JLT Document 12 Filed 01/27/16 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

Applicant’s Attorney Association convention and has a heavy trial workload after returning to the 

office.” (Doc. 11 at 2) Defendant does not oppose the second extension requested. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s second request for an extension of time is GRANTED; 

2. Plaintiff SHALL file an opening brief no later than March 2, 2016; and

3. Plaintiff is cautioned that no further extensions will be granted without the showing of 

exceptionally good cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00819-JLT Document 12 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 2