UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ROBIN R. DUTKO, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

 

Case No. 2:15-cv-10698 

District Judge Bernard A. Friedman 

Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S 

THIRD MOTION FOR EXTENSION (DE 16) AND SETTING A BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE 

 Plaintiff, Robin R. Dutko, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 

1383(c)(3) for a review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 

denying her application for supplemental security income. (DE 1.) The Court 

issued a briefing schedule on June 15, 2015 (DE 11) and Plaintiff timely filed her 

motion for summary judgment on July 8, 2015 (DE 12). Defendant’s response and 

cross-motion for summary judgment was initially due on August 7, 2015. On that 

date, Defendant filed an unopposed motion to extend the deadline until September 

8, 2015. (DE 13.) The Court granted Defendant’s motion on August 10, 2015. On 

September 8, 2015, however, Defendant filed a second motion for extension of 

time, seeking to extend her deadline until September 22, 2015 and noting that “no 

2:15-cv-10698-BAF-APP Doc # 17 Filed 09/22/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 151
2

further extensions [were] anticipated.” (DE 14.) The Court granted the motion the 

same day. (DE 15.) 

 For the third time, on the date her brief was due, Defendant filed a motion 

for extension of time. In the instant motion, she seeks an additional fourteen days 

in which to file her response and cross-motion for summary judgment. (DE 16.) 

Defendant asserts that an extension is necessary to allow her time to “determine if 

remand is warranted in this case.” (Id. at 1-2.) In addition, Defendant’s counsel 

summarizes the large geographical area covered by her office and asserts that the 

Court may grant an extension pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1). 

The Court is informed that Plaintiff opposes the motion, and quite frankly, can 

hardly blame her. 

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), the Court may extend the 

deadline when good cause is shown. A party shows good cause by demonstrating 

a ‘“reasonable justification’ for its failure to complete the requested task within the 

time prescribed.” Rainey v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, No. 11-12520, 2011 WL 

4954154, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 18, 2011) (quoting Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348, 

357 (6th Cir. 2001)). 

 Here, Defendant fails to show good cause to justify the grant of a third 

extension of time in which to file her motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed 

her motion for summary judgment on July 8, 2015. Defendant has therefore had 

2:15-cv-10698-BAF-APP Doc # 17 Filed 09/22/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 152
3

two and a half months to “determine if remand is warranted in this case.” She does 

not offer a reasonable justification for her failure to complete the task within the 

time prescribed, and instead describes the large area covered by her counsel. 

While the Court is not unsympathetic to Defendant’s counsel’s caseload, “the 

normal press of business certainly does not rise to [the good cause] standard.” Id. 

at *2. Moreover, the question of whether “remand is warranted” is essentially the 

question of whether the appeal has merit, or conversely, whether the Commissioner 

can justify defending the ALJ’s decision. The Commissioner certainly should have 

been able to figure out the answer to this question by now, even if the demands of 

a large caseload make it difficult to fully draft a brief on the merits. 

However, with some hesitation and in an effort to ensure this case is decided 

on its merits, the Court will grant Defendant a very brief extension in which to file 

her motion. Accordingly, Defendant must file her motion for summary judgment 

ON OR BEFORE FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2015 at 5:00 P.M. Plaintiff may 

file a reply to Defendant’s motion ON OR BEFORE TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 

2015. 

 Defendant is cautioned that no further extensions will be granted to her in 

this matter, and further cautioned that in future cases even short third extensions— 

particularly on the basis of a need to determine if “remand is warranted” and filed 

on the actual due date—are extremely unlikely. 

2:15-cv-10698-BAF-APP Doc # 17 Filed 09/22/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 153
4

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 22, 2015 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

I hereby Certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record 

on September 22, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

2:15-cv-10698-BAF-APP Doc # 17 Filed 09/22/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 154