Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00228/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00228-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Jeanette Sepeda
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 January 21, 2015, the parties stipulated for Defendant to have an extension of time to file a 

response to Plaintiff’s opening brief. (Doc. 20.) The Scheduling Order allows for “a single thirty (30) 

day extension” by stipulation of the parties. (Doc. 8-1 at 4.) Beyond the single thirty-day extension, 

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

good cause.” (Id.) Plaintiff and Defendant previously stipulated for an extension of time for Defendant 

to prepare and file the administrative record (Doc. 13) and for Plaintiff to file an opening brief. (Doc. 

17.) Therefore, the Court construes the stipulation of the parties to be a motion by Defendant for 

modification of the Court’s Scheduling Order.

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. 

JEANETTE SEPEDA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00228- JLT 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT AN 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 

PLAINTIFF’S OPENING BRIEF

(Doc. 20)

Case 1:14-cv-00228-JLT Document 21 Filed 01/21/15 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

Oct. 9, 2009). Here, Defendant’s counsel requests the extension due to illness and the need for 

“additional time to consider her position in this case.” (Doc. 20 at 1- 2.) The Court will grant 

Defendant’s request for a further extension of time because Plaintiff does not oppose the 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 a response to Plaintiff’s opening brief on or before 

February 20, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00228-JLT Document 21 Filed 01/21/15 Page 2 of 2