Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00042/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00042-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Kathryn Innette Hensley
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

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER 

United States Attorney 

DONNA L. CALVERT 

Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX 

BRENDA M. PULLIN 

Special Assistant United States Attorney 

Social Security Administration 

 

 160 Spear Street, Suite 800 

 San Francisco, California 94105 

 Telephone: (415) 977-8975 

 Facsimile: (415) 744-0134 

 E-Mail: Brenda.Pullin@ssa.gov 

Attorneys for Defendant 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

KATHRYN INNETTE HENSLEY, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security, 

 Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-42-EFB 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

FOR FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR 

DEFENDANT TO FILE CROSS-MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective counsel 

of record, that Defendant shall have a first extension of time of 60 days to respond to Plaintiff’s 

opening brief. The extension is necessary because when the case was transferred internally within 

defense counsel’s office, the former attorney handling the case appears not to have sought such an 

extension prior to the transfer. Consequently, the new attorney did not register a deadline for this 

Case 2:14-cv-00042-EFB Document 17 Filed 09/26/14 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

case. Defendant respectfully suggests that this constitutes excusable neglect due to the volume of 

cases and administrative tasks handled by defense counsel. For these reasons, Defendant requests a 

60-day extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s opening brief. 

 There have not been any prior extensions in this case. Defendant’s response was previously 

due on or before August 18, 2014; the new deadline would be October 17, 2014. 

The parties further stipulate that the Court’s Scheduling Order shall be modified accordingly. 

Dated: September 23, 2014 By: /s/ Lawrence D. Rohlfing 

 (as authorized via e-mail) 

 LAWRENCE D. ROHLFING 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 MELINDA L. HAAG 

 United States Attorney 

 

Dated: September 23, 2014 By: s/ Brenda M. Pullin 

 BRENDA M. PULLIN 

 Special Assistant U.S. Attorney 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 25, 2014.

Case 2:14-cv-00042-EFB Document 17 Filed 09/26/14 Page 2 of 2