IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 13, 2010
BIBI RAKHSANA HAYEE, PLAINTIFF,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
On May 10, 2010, counsel for plaintiff filed a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Extending Plaintiff's Time to respond to Defendant's Answer. (Dkt. No. 20.) This request for an extension of time was filed on the date plaintiff's response was due. The proposed order attached to this stipulation stated that the stipulation showed "good cause," and that it was a "first extension" of time.
Yet, the accompanying stipulation does not affirmatively show good cause, and in fact fails to articulate a specific basis for the request for an extension of time. Furthermore, the request for an extension of time is not a first request, but is a second request for an extension.*fn1 A first request for an extension of time was granted by this court on April 22, 2010, and provided plaintiff until May 10, 2010, to respond. (Dkt No. 19.)
However, in light of the parties stipulated request, the request for an extension of time to June 9, 2010, is hereby GRANTED. No further extensions of time will be permitted absent leave of court, and good cause shown. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(b) (providing that the court may grant an extension of time "for good cause").
IT IS SO ORDERED.