Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00976/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00976-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

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

VIRGINIA M. SALINAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00976-EPG

ORDER RE: THIRD REQUEST FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT 

TO FILE OPPOSITION BRIEF

(ECF No. 20)

Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin (“Defendant”) has filed a request for an extension of time 

to file her opposition brief to Plaintiff’s Opening Brief. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff’s Opening Brief 

was timely filed on March 24, 2016 and this is Defendant’s third request for an extension. The 

Court initially granted a 45 day extension on April 27, 2016, which Defendant requested “because 

of a very heavy workload and because of an upcoming trip to Taiwan as a result of the passing of 

the undersigned’s grandfather.” (ECF No. 17.) The Court then granted a second extension of 30 

days on June 10, 2016, which Defendant requested because of a “recent return from a two week 

absence from the office and because of a Ninth Circuit brief that is due to be filed in two weeks.” 

(ECF No. 19.) 

In granting that request, the Court noted that “extensions based on demands of other cases 

are disfavored” and that “no further extensions will be permitted absent extraordinary 

Case 1:15-cv-00976-EPG Document 21 Filed 07/20/16 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

circumstances.” (ECF No. 19.) After the second extension, Defendant’s opposition brief was to 

be filed no later than July 11, 2016. No opposition brief was filed by that date. Instead, on July 

18, 2016, one week after the opposition brief was to be filed, Defendant has filed a third request 

for an extension of time “because of a heavy accumulated workload following a two week 

absence from the office after the passing of the undersigned’s grandfather.” (ECF No. 20.) 

The request for an extension of time is DENIED. As explained in the order granting the 

second request for an extension, the Court presumes that counsel has sufficient resources to 

address cases for which he serves as counsel of record. The Court has already provided multiple 

extensions and a two week absence from the office does not establish good cause for a cumulative 

extension of nearly 90 days. Moreover, the request for an extension of time is untimely because 

Defendant’s opposition brief was due one week before the filing of the extension. The Court will 

take Plaintiff’s opening brief under submission and consider the issues raised therein. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00976-EPG Document 21 Filed 07/20/16 Page 2 of 2