Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01698/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01698-4/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

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 October 13 2016, Defendant filed a stipulation of the parties to extend time for Plaintiff to 

serve a confidential letter brief. (Doc. 19) Importantly, the Scheduling Order allows only for a single 

extension of thirty days by the stipulation of the parties (Doc. 5 at 4), and this is the fourth extension 

sought in the action. (See Docs. 10, 13, 15) Beyond the single extension by stipulation, “requests to 

modify [the scheduling] order must be made by written motion and will be granted only for good 

cause.” (Doc. 5 at 4) Thus, the Court construes the stipulation of the parties to be a motion by 

Defendant for further modification of the Scheduling Order.

Significantly, the parties were previously cautioned that “no further extensions will be granted 

without the showing of exceptionally good cause.” (Doc. 14 at 2) Here, Defendant’s counsel, Timothy 

Bolin, asserts the extension is necessary because he “has been sick and out of the office intermittently 

in September 2016, and was required to attend several mandatory trainings for attorneys in the office in 

MARIA THERESA CISNEROS- BELLO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01698- JLT 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST 

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. 19)

Case 1:15-cv-01698-JLT Document 20 Filed 10/17/16 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

September 2016.” (Doc. 19 at 1) In addition, Mr. Bolin reports that he had an “inordinately heavy 

caseload from September 2016 through October 2016.” (Id.) Therefore, he “respectfully requests this 

additional time to review the Administrative Record and to evaluate and respond to Plaintiff’s 

arguments.” (Id. at 2)

The Court finds Defendant fails to demonstrate “exceptionally good cause” for the extension of 

time in this matter. Counsel has not provided sufficient information such that the Court is able to find 

he could not timely prepare an opening brief in the matter. On the other hand, the Court recognizes 

Counsel’s illness was clearly unplanned and impacted the ability to complete work in a timely fashion, 

and Plaintiff does not oppose the request. (See Doc. 19) 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

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

2. Defendant SHALL serve a responsive brief no later than October 31, 2016; 

3. The parties are advised that the Court contemplates that no further extensions of time 

will be sought; and

4. If Defendant fails to file the responsive brief in compliance with this deadline ordered 

by the Court, the matter will be decided without any input by Defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01698-JLT Document 20 Filed 10/17/16 Page 2 of 2