UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 13, 2013
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. 19)
The parties have stipulated by counsel to extend the period of time for Defendant to file an opposition to the plaintiff's opening brief. (Doc. 19). The Scheduling Order allows an extension of thirty days by stipulation. (Doc. 7 at 4). "With the exception of the single thirty day extension, requests to modify [the] order must be made by written motion and will be granted only for good cause." Id.
On February 20, 2013, the Court granted the stipulated extension of time for Plaintiff to file her opening brief. (Doc. 17). Because this is the second extension sought by the parties, the Court construes the stipulation of the parties to be a motion for an extension of time, and Defendant must demonstrate good cause for modification of the Court's scheduling order. (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, 74 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1260, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94828 at *7 (E.D. Cal. 2 Oct. 9, 2009). Here, Defendant asserts the extension of time is necessary "because of workload issues, 3 including the unavoidable transfer of assignments and a high volume of other disability matters in 4 federal district court." (Doc. 19 at 1). 5
Good cause appearing, it is HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Defendant's motion for an extension of time is GRANTED; and
2. Defendant's opposition SHALL be filed on or before May 17, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.