Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01253/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01253-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Sherry Slade
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 24, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation for Plaintiff to have an extension of thirty 

days to serve Defendant with a confidential brief. (Doc. 13). Notably, the scheduling order in this 

action allows for “a single thirty (30) day extension” by stipulation of the parties. (Doc. 5-1 at 4) 

(emphasis added). This extension was used by the plaintiff in her previous request for an additional 

thirty days to prepare and serve a confidential brief. (Docs. 11-12). 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. 5-1 at 4). 

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. 

Oct. 9, 2009). Here, Plaintiff asserts a second extension is necessary because “Plaintiff’s counsel has a 

SHERRY SLADE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01253 - JLT

ORDER GRANTING A SECOND EXTENSION OF 

TIME

(Doc. 13)

Case 1:12-cv-01253-LJO-JLT Document 14 Filed 01/25/13 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

heavy workload schedule and will need additional time to submit the confidential brief.” (Doc. 13 at 

1). Ms. Bosavanh reports: “In the next ten days, she has three days of administrative hearings out of 

town to prepare and attend as well as a show cause hearing at the federal courthouse in Fresno, CA on 

January 29, 2013.” Id. 

Notably, Plaintiff’s counsel provides no explanation for her delay in preparing the confidential 

brief, knowing the schedule that lay before her as the amended deadline approached. Nevertheless, the 

Court will grant the request for a further extension of time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

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

2. Plaintiff SHALL serve a confidential brief on or before February 27, 2013. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

Case 1:12-cv-01253-LJO-JLT Document 14 Filed 01/25/13 Page 2 of 2