Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00667/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00667-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Carolyn Yates
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 February 17, 2016, Defendant filed a stipulation of the parties to extend time for Defendant

to file a response to Plaintiff’s opening brief. (Doc. 16) Importantly, the scheduling order in this action 

allows for “a single thirty (30) day extension” by stipulation of the parties. (Doc. 5 at 4, emphasis 

added) This extension was used previously by Plaintiff, who requested an extension of time to prepare 

her confidential letter brief. (Docs. 11-2) 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.” (Doc. 

5 at 4) Further, the parties are cautioned that “[r]equests for modification of th[e] briefing schedule will 

not routinely be granted. (Id., emphasis in original) Therefore, the Court construes the stipulation of

the parties to be a motion by Defendant for modification of the Court’s Scheduling Order.

Here, the response to the opening brief is due February 19, 2016. Defendant’s counsel, Donna 

Anders, reports this extension of time is necessary because she is busy “preparing for and conducting a 

deposition,” and she needs “additional time to fully review the administrative record and consider the 

CAROLYN YATES,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00667- JLT 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST 

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. 16)

Case 1:15-cv-00667-JLT Document 17 Filed 02/22/16 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

government’s position.” (Doc. 16 at 1-2) Plaintiff does not oppose the requested extension. (Id.) 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

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

2. Defendant SHALL file a response to Plaintiff’s opening brief on or before March 21, 

2016; and

3. The parties are cautioned that no further extensions will be granted without the showing 

of exceptionally good cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00667-JLT Document 17 Filed 02/22/16 Page 2 of 2