Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00545/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00545-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:402 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

JANE BEJERANO GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00545-SAB

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE OPPOSITION 

TO PLAINTIFF’S OPENING BRIEF AND 

REQUIRING ORDER TO BE SERVED ON 

REGIONAL CHIEF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 14)

Plaintiff Jane Garcia (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of a final decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denying an application for 

disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. Currently before the Court is a stipulation 

filed January 8, 2020, requesting an extension until January 31, 2020, for Defendant to file a 

responsive brief. (ECF No. 14.) 

On April 30, 2019, the Court issued the scheduling order in this matter which specified 

Defendant’s responsive brief shall be filed and served within thirty (30) days after service of 

Plaintiff’s opening brief. (ECF No. 5 at 3.) Plaintiff filed her opening brief on December 2, 

2019. (ECF No. 13.) Pursuant to the terms of the scheduling order, and given January 1, 2020, 

was a holiday, Defendant’s brief was due on January 2, 2020. The stipulation currently before 

the Court was not filed until after the filing deadline had expired. In the stipulation, Defendant 

did not acknowledge that the deadline had expired, nor did Defendant provide an explanation for 

Case 1:19-cv-00545-SAB Document 15 Filed 01/08/20 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

why the stipulation was filed after the deadline. 

In light of the fact that Defendant filed the request after the deadline without an 

explanation for the delay in seeking an extension, Defendant’s stipulation for an extension of 

time shall be denied without prejudice subject to renewal.1 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 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. 

Although the matters involved different counsel, within approximately the last thirty 

days, this Court has twice admonished Defendant for filing requests for extensions of time after 

the deadline to file briefing had expired. See Alvarez-Herrera v. Commissioner of Social 

Security, Case No. 1:19-cv-00243-SAB, ECF Nos. 15, 16; Shaban v. Commissioner of Social 

Security, Case No. 1:19-cv-00111-SAB, ECF Nos. 19, 20. Further, in Shaban, on December 17, 

2019, the Court required the order denying the late-filed request to be served on the Regional 

Chief Counsel for the Social Security Administration to highlight the fact that the request was 

filed late despite the Court’s previous admonishment. In light of the belatedly filed request

currently before the Court, the Court shall similarly require this order be served on the Regional 

Chief Counsel. 

///

///

///

///

 

1

 The Court is aware that the scheduling order states that the Court will allow a single thirty (30) day extension of 

any aspect of the scheduling order by stipulation of the parties without requiring approval by the Court. However, 

the scheduling order has not been complied with due to the expiration of the filing deadline, and the Court shall now 

require an explanation of why the stipulation was not filed prior to the deadline if Defendant seeks to renew the 

request for an extension. 

Case 1:19-cv-00545-SAB Document 15 Filed 01/08/20 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The stipulated request for an extension of time for Defendant to file an opposition 

to Plaintiff’s opening brief is DENIED without prejudice; and

2. Defense counsel shall serve a copy of this order on Regional Chief Counsel for 

the Social Security Administration, Deborah Lee Stachel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00545-SAB Document 15 Filed 01/08/20 Page 3 of 3