Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01100/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01100-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Shannon Thompson
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 May 26, 2015, the parties stipulated for Defendant to have an extension of time file a 

response to Plaintiff’s opening brief. (Doc. 16.) The Scheduling Order allows for “a single thirty (30) 

day extension” by stipulation of the parties. (Doc. 5-1 at 4.) The parties were informed that any further 

extensions of time must be requested by written motion, and would not be granted without good cause. 

(Id.) Previously, the parties stipulated for an extension of time for Plaintiff to serve a confidential letter 

brief. (Doc. 17 at 2.) Therefore, the Court construes the parties’ stipulation to be a motion by 

Defendant for an extension of time.

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, 2009). Here, Defendant’s counsel “respectfully requests this additional time because he has a 

SHANNON THOMPSON, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01100- JLT 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT AN 

EXTENSION OF TIME 

(Doc. 16)

Case 1:14-cv-01100-JLT Document 17 Filed 05/28/15 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

very heavy workload despite due diligence.” (Doc. 16 at 1.) By signing the stipulation, Plaintiff 

indicates there is no opposition to the request. Therefore, the Court will grant Defendant’s request. 

However, the parties are cautioned that no further extensions of time will be granted without a showing 

of exceptional good cause.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

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

2. Defendant SHALL file a response to Plaintiff’s opening brief on or before 

June 19, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 28, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01100-JLT Document 17 Filed 05/28/15 Page 2 of 2