(SS) Tollison v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2019 )

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT 1 United States Attorney 2 DEBORAH LEE STACHEL Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX 3 Social Security Administration BEN A. PORTER 4 Special Assistant United States Attorney 5 160 Spear Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94105 6 Telephone: (415) 977-8979 Facsimile: (415) 744-0134 7 E-Mail: Ben.Porter@ssa.gov 8 Attorneys for Defendant 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 FRESNO DIVISION 12 13 ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-00142-BAM JACKIE TOLLISON, ) 14 ) STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR AN Plaintiff, ) EXTENSION OF TIME 15 ) vs. ) 16 ) ) 17 ANDREW SAUL, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) 18 ) ) 19 Defendant. ) 20 21 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective 22 counsel of record, that the time for responding to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be 23 extended forty-five (45) days from October 24, 2019, to December 8, 2019. This is Defendant’s 24 first request for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s motion. Defendant respectfully 25 requests this additional time because the parties are pursuing settlement discussions. 26 The parties further stipulate that the Court’s Scheduling Order shall be modified 27 accordingly. 28 1 Counsel apologizes to the Court for any inconvenience caused by this delay. 2 Respectfully submitted, 3 4 Dated: October 17, 2019 /s/Meghan O. Lambert (*as authorized via e-mail on October 17, 2019) 5 MEGHAN O. LAMBERT Attorney for Plaintiff 6 7 Dated: October 17, 2019 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT 8 United States Attorney DEBORAH LEE STACHEL 9 Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX 10 Social Security Administration 11 By: /s/ Ben A. Porter 12 BEN A. PORTER Special Assistant U.S. Attorney 13 Attorneys for Defendant 14 15 16 17 18 ORDER 19 Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, Defendant requests an extension of time to respond to 20 Plaintiff’s Opening Brief because the parties are pursuing settlement discussions. Generally, 21 settlement discussions do not constitute good cause justifying modification of a pretrial 22 Scheduling Order. See, e.g., Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Rehrig Pacific Co., No. 11-cv-01273- 23 LJO-BAM, 2013 WL 1164941, *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013). Nevertheless, because the 24 Scheduling Order in this action permits a single thirty-day (30) extension by stipulation of the 25 parties without Court approval (See Doc. 5-1 at ¶ 12) and because resolution of this action 26 without judicial intervention preserves both party and judicial resources, Defendant’s request for 27 an extension of time is GRANTED. Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Opening Brief shall be 28 1 filed on or before December 8, 2019. All other deadlines in the Court’s Scheduling Order are 2 modified accordingly. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: October 23, 2019 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ 6 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