IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 6, 2010
JUAN JAIME, PLAINTIFF,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REGARDING STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE REPLY BRIEF
On January 6, 2010, the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order granting an extension of time to Plaintiff within which to file the reply brief. The stipulation provides that Plaintiff "be granted a 30 day extension of time, until February 4, 2010 . . .." (Doc. 19.) For the foregoing reasons, the stipulation is ADOPTED in part and DENIED in part.
Pursuant to the Scheduling Order of March 4, 2009, a reply brief "shall be filed with the court and served . . . within fifteen (15) days after service" of Defendant's opposition brief. (Doc. 7, ¶ 8, emphasis added.) Accordingly, when Defendant filed and served its brief in opposition on December 4, 2009, Plaintiff's reply brief became due on or before December 19, 2009. By comparison, the stipulation filed today assumes the reply brief would have been due thirty (30) days after the opposing brief has been filed. The assumption in incorrect.
The stipulation provides no explanation for Plaintiff's delay. It does not account for the period between December 19, 2009 - the date the reply brief was due - and today's date. Moreover, even assuming for the sake of argument that the reply brief was due January 4, 2010, no explanation is provided to account for the belated request for an extension of time. See Local Rule 144(d).
Plaintiff shall be permitted an extension of time within which to file a reply brief of fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order. Therefore, Plaintiff's reply brief shall be filed with this Court no later than January 21, 2010.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.