UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 21, 2012
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. 13)
In this action, the administrative record was filed on April 13, 2012. (Doc. 12). As a result, the opening brief was due ninety-five days later, on July 17, 2012.*fn1 (See Doc. 7 at 3). However, on July 19, 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 at 4). Beyond this extension, "requests to modify [the Scheduling Order] must be made by written motion and will be granted only for good cause." (Id.) Here, Plaintiff seeks an extension until September 14, 2012, which is nearly sixty days from the original due date. Accordingly, the Court interprets the parties' stipulation as a motion to modify the scheduling order.
According the parties' stipulation, the extension is required "in order to properly address the 2 issues within the administrative record in this matter." (Doc. 13 at 2). Significantly, the parties should 3 be familiar with the issues due to the briefing required prior to the filing of an opening brief with the 4 Court. Presumably, the parties complied with the scheduling order, because the deadlines are 5 considered "firm, real and are to be taken seriously by parties and their counsel." Shore v. Brown, 6 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94828 at *7 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2009). Consequently, Plaintiff has not 7 demonstrated good cause for an extension beyond the thirty days permitted by stipulation under the 8 Scheduling Order. 9
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The parties' request for an extension of time is GRANTED IN PART; and
2. Plaintiff SHALL file an opening brief on or before August 17, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.