Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00273/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00273-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Darlene Alice Trujillo
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARLENE ALICE TRUJILLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

CASE NO: 1:21-cv-00273-NONE-GSA 

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT 

TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION

 (Doc. 18)

Plaintiff moves for a 30-day extension of time from January 3, 2022 to February 2, 2022 to 

file an opening brief due to counsel’s workload given the increased number of Certified 

Administrative Records filed in previously stayed cases. This is Plaintiff’s first motion for an 

extension for cause.

The Scheduling Order allows for a single extension of thirty days by the stipulation of the 

parties. Doc. 5 at 3. 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.” Id.

When considering whether good cause exists to modify a scheduling order, courts consider 

the foreseeability of the impediment to meeting the deadline and the party’s diligence in seeking 

the extension once it became apparent they could not meet the deadline. See Sharp v. Covenant 

Care LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012); Ordaz Gonzalez v. Cty. of Fresno, No. 1:18-CV01558-BAM, 2020 WL 2539287, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2020). The Court has the inherent 

power to manage its own docket to achieve an orderly and expeditious resolution of cases. Southern 

California Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Plaintiff’s counsel indicated he contacted defense counsel for concurrence but did not 

Case 1:21-cv-00273-JLT-GSA Document 19 Filed 01/04/22 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

receive a response. The Court hesitates to act on the motion without an indication whether the 

motion is opposed.

Accordingly, Defendant is DIRECTED to respond to the motion within 5 days of the entry 

of this order. Alternatively, if Plaintiff has now received a response, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to 

file an amended motion within 5 days of the entry of this order indicating whether it is opposed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00273-JLT-GSA Document 19 Filed 01/04/22 Page 2 of 2