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

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 WENONAH PARKER, CASE NUMBER: 1:20-cv-00601-GSA 7 Plaintiff, 8 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION v. 9 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, acting 10 Commissioner of Social Security, 11 Defendant. 12 13 14 Plaintiff moves for an unopposed 15-day extension of time from September 23, 2021 to 15 October 8, 2021 to file a reply brief due to counsel’s increased work responsibilities. This is 16 Plaintiff’s third extension in this case and the first extension of this specific deadline. 17 The Scheduling Order allows for a single extension of thirty days by the stipulation of the 18 parties. Doc. 6 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 Given counsel’s increased workload, the voluminous administrative record (approximately 28 2000 pages), and that counsel sought the extension well in advance of the deadline, good cause 1 exists for the extension. 2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s deadline to file a reply brief is extended to 3 and including October 8, 2021. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: September 14, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28