(SS) Jimenez v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2021 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 ANA LAURA JIMINEZ, CASE No.: 1:21-cv-00279-AWI-GSA 7 Plaintiff, 8 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S v. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 9 TO FILE RESPONSE BRIEF KILOLO KIJAKAZI, acting 10 Commissioner of Social Security, (Doc. 22) 11 Defendant. 12 13 14 Defendant moves for an unopposed 60-day extension of time from January 3, 2022 to March 15 4, 2022 to file a response brief because defense counsel is current serving 92 days of active military 16 duty. 17 The Scheduling Order allows for a single extension of thirty days by the stipulation of the 18 parties. Doc. 5 at 3. Beyond the single extension by stipulation, “requests to modify [the 19 scheduling] order must be made by written motion and will be granted only for good cause.” Id. 20 When considering whether good cause exists to modify a scheduling order, courts consider 21 the foreseeability of the impediment to meeting the deadline and the party’s diligence in seeking 22 the extension once it became apparent they could not meet the deadline. See Sharp v. Covenant 23 Care LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012); Ordaz Gonzalez v. Cty. of Fresno, No. 1:18-CV- 24 01558-BAM, 2020 WL 2539287, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2020). The Court has the inherent 25 power to manage its own docket to achieve an orderly and expeditious resolution of cases. Southern 26 California Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2002). 27 Counsel has set forth good cause for the extension and sought it well in advance of the 28 January 3 deadline. 1 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s deadline to file a response brief is extended 2 to and including March 4, 2022. All other deadlines are adjusted accordingly. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: December 6, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28