UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 4, 2012
KRISTEN G. WILSON,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. 14)
On May 3, 2012, the parties filed a stipulation for an extension of time for Plaintiff to file an opening brief. (Doc. 14). The Scheduling Order allows a single thirty-day extension by the stipulation of parties. (Doc. 7-1 at 4). After this extension has been used, "requests to modify [the Scheduling Order] must be made by written motion and will be granted only for good cause." (Id.) Because the parties stipulated to an extension of the briefing schedule on March 5, 2012 (Doc. 12), the Court interprets the parties' stipulation as a motion to modify the scheduling order.
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). According the parties' stipulation, the extension is required because "a portion of the Certified Administrative Record filed with this Court appears to be missing." (Doc. 14 at 1).
Defendant requests a sixty-day extension be granted to allow sufficient time for Defendant to locate 2 the evidence and for Plaintiff to file her opening brief. (Id. at 1-2). 3
Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The parties' request for an extension of time is GRANTED; and
2. Plaintiff SHALL file her opening brief on or before July 5, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.