UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 25, 2013
KIMBERLY EDELBROCK, PLAINTIFF,
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. 15)
On January 24, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation for Plaintiff to file an opening brief. (Doc. 15). The Scheduling Order allows a single thirty-day extension by the stipulation of parties. (Doc. 7 at 4). This extension was used by the plaintiff, who requested an additional thirty days to file her opening brief. (Docs. 12-13). Any further "requests to modify [the scheduling] order must be made by written motion and will be granted only for good cause." (Doc. 7 at 4).
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, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94828 at *7 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2009). Here, Defendant asserts "the additional time to further review the file and prepare a response in this matter due to a heavy workload, despite due diligence." (Doc. 15 at 1).
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Defendant's request for an extension of time is GRANTED;
2. Defendant SHALL file a brief in opposition on or before February 27, 2012; and
3. Any reply by Plaintiff SHALL be filed within fifteen days of the date of service of Defendant's brief in opposition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.