Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01253/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01253-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Sherry Slade
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 March 24, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation for Plaintiff to have an extension of thirty 

days to serve Defendant with a confidential brief. (Doc. 20). Notably, the scheduling order in this 

action allows for “a single thirty (30) day extension” by stipulation of the parties. (Doc. 5-1 at 4). This 

extension was used by the plaintiff when she requested for an additional thirty days to prepare and 

serve a confidential brief. (Docs. 11-12). A second extension was granted to Plaintiff on January 25, 

2013. (Doc. 14). 

Importantly, beyond the single 30-day extension, “requests to modify [the scheduling] order 

must be made by written motion and will be granted only for good cause.” (Doc. 5-1 at 4). A 

scheduling order “is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded 

without peril.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). The 

deadlines are considered “firm, real and are to be taken seriously by parties and their counsel.” Shore 

v. Brown, 74 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1260, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94828 at *7 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 

SHERRY SLADE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01253 - JLT

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. 20)

Case 1:12-cv-01253-LJO-JLT Document 22 Filed 05/28/13 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

2009). Defendant’s counsel, Patrick Snyder, asserts an extension of time is necessary “due to an 

unavoidable transfer of assignments . . . and an unplanned family medical issue resulting in absence 

from the office.” (Doc. 23 at 1). Notably, only a day after seeking an extension of time, Mr. Snyder 

was terminated as counsel and replaced by Daniel Talbert. (Doc. 21). 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

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

2. Defendant SHALL file a response to the opening brief on or before June 27, 2013. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 28, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01253-LJO-JLT Document 22 Filed 05/28/13 Page 2 of 2