IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 1, 2012
GAILLEEN E. SCHMIDT, PLAINTIFF,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Presently before the court is plaintiff's ex parte application for an extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment, and such motion was due on or about July 26, 2012.*fn1 For good cause shown, the court grants plaintiff's request. Plaintiff shall file her motion for summary judgment or remand no later than August 29, 2012.
However, the court notes the following for plaintiff's counsel's future reference, as counsel is appearing pro hac vice. Plaintiff's counsel has a duty to familiarize himself with the court's Local Rules.
First, plaintiff's counsel filed plaintiff's ex parte request after the deadline for plaintiff's motion. Local Rule 144(d) provides that a party seeking an extension shall file that request "as soon as the need for an extension becomes apparent," and further provides that "[r]equests for Court-approved extensions brought on the required filing date for the pleading or other document are looked upon with disfavor."
Second, plaintiff's counsel did not file an affidavit stating why a stipulation for an extension of time was not feasible. See Local Rule 144(c). The court notes that the Social Security practitioners who practice in this district tend to readily agree to stipulated extensions of time, especially where good cause is shown.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's ex parte application for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 15) is granted.
2. Plaintiff shall file her motion for summary judgment or remand no later than August 29, 2012.
3. The court's scheduling order is modified accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED.