Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01494/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01494-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Michelle Leanne Fabbro
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHELLE LEANNE FABBRO,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:24-cv-01494-CSK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE FIFTH REQUEST FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME AND PROVIDING 

OPPORTUNITY TO FILE RENEWED 

REQUEST

(ECF No. 21)

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Michelle Leanne Fabbro’s ex parte request for a 

FIFTH extension of time to file Plaintiff’s opening brief (ECF No. 21) from December 17, 

2024 to December 19, 2024. This ex parte request was filed on December 17, 2024 at 

5:13 p.m. PST, after business hours and on the deadline to file Plaintiff’s opening brief, 

which already represented a 116 day extension of the original August 23, 2024 deadline. 

The Court previously warned the parties that the fourth extension of time granted would 

be the last extension of time (ECF No. 20), and also previously warned the parties that 

requests for extension need to be made before the deadline (ECF Nos. 15, 20).

“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of 

litigation.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(citation omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good 

Case 2:24-cv-01494-CSK Document 22 Filed 12/18/24 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

cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The pretrial schedule may 

be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 

extension.’” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 

2002) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). Plaintiff has not established counsel’s

diligence to meet the December 17, 2024 deadline, or how despite counsel’s diligence, 

the deadline cannot be met. The Court denies Plaintiff’s ex parte fifth request for failure 

to establish good cause to further extend the December 17, 2024 deadline and for failure 

to follow the Court’s prior instructions regarding late requests for extensions. See 

Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087; Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607.

Plaintiff will be provided with an opportunity to renew the ex parte fifth request for 

an extension. If Plaintiff elects to renew her request, by close of business December 

19, 2024, Plaintiff must file (1) a renewed request that includes sufficient detail regarding 

diligence to meet the December 17, 2024 deadline and sufficient detail regarding the 

“unexpected adverse reactions” to vaccinations (Pl. Ex Parte Fifth Extension Request, 

ECF No. 21 at 1); and (2) a declaration by Plaintiff’s counsel signed under penalty of 

perjury including the date(s) when such vaccinations were received, the date when the 

“unexpected adverse reactions” began, a description of the adverse reactions, the date 

the adverse reactions resolved, any treatment received for the adverse reactions, the 

date and time when counsel requested a stipulation from opposing counsel for this fifth 

extension request. If Plaintiff elects to renew the ex parte fifth request for an extension, 

Plaintiff must also file her opening brief by close of business December 19, 2024. If the 

Court were to grant a renewed fifth request for an extension, such extension would be 

limited to extending the deadline to December 19, 2024, the date requested by Plaintiff. 

Dated: December 18, 2024

5, fabb.1494.24

Case 2:24-cv-01494-CSK Document 22 Filed 12/18/24 Page 2 of 2