Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01298/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01298-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Mike Rocha
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

MIKE ROCHA,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01298-SAB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO FILE REPLY LATE

(ECF No. 27)

On July 14, 2016, the Court issued an order setting August 12, 2016, as the deadline for 

Plaintiff’s reply brief. (ECF No. 24.) On August 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed his reply brief. (ECF 

No. 26.) On August 15, 2016, Plaintiff also filed an application for leave to file his reply brief 

late. (ECF No. 27.) 

Under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a discovery and scheduling order 

controls the course of litigation unless the Court subsequently alters the original order. Fed R. 

Civ. P. 16(d). Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson V. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking 

the modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 

diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of that order. Id. The court may also consider the 

prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. 

Plaintiff indicates that Plaintiff’s counsel failed to comply with the Court’s order because 

Case 1:15-cv-01298-SAB Document 28 Filed 08/17/16 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

of Plaintiff’s counsel’s hearing schedule. (ECF No. 27 at 1.) Plaintiff also indicates that 

Defendant does not object to Plaintiff filing his reply late and that Defendant would not oppose 

this application. (ECF No. 27 at 2.) Plaintiff’s counsel is reminded that absent extraordinary 

circumstances, the parties should file any requests for extensions of deadlines prior to the 

expiration of the deadline. Upon review of Plaintiff’s application for leave to file the reply brief 

late, and in light of Defendant’s non-opposition, the Court grants Plaintiff’s application. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application for leave 

to file his reply brief late is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01298-SAB Document 28 Filed 08/17/16 Page 2 of 2