(SS) Tollison v. Commissioner of Social Security

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney DEBORAH LEE STACHEL Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX Social Security Administration BEN A. PORTER Special Assistant United States Attorney 5 160 Spear Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94105 6 Telephone: (415) 977-8979 Facsimile: (415) 744-0134 E-Mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION 13 ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-00142-BAM JACKIE TOLLISON, ) 14 ) STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR AN Plaintiff, ) EXTENSION OF TIME 15 ) vs. ) 16 ) ) ANDREW SAUL, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) 18 ) ) 19 Defendant. ) 21 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective counsel of record, that the time for responding to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be extended forty-five (45) days from October 24, 2019, to December 8, 2019. This is Defendant’s first request for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s motion. Defendant respectfully 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 accordingly.

1 Counsel apologizes to the Court for any inconvenience caused by this delay.

Respectfully submitted, Dated: October 17, 2019 /s/Meghan O. Lambert (*as authorized via e-mail on October 17, 2019) 5 MEGHAN O. LAMBERT Attorney for Plaintiff Dated: October 17, 2019 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT 8 United States Attorney DEBORAH LEE STACHEL Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX 10 Social Security Administration 11 By: /s/ Ben A. Porter 12 BEN A. PORTER Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorneys for Defendant

ORDER Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, Defendant requests an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s Opening Brief because the parties are pursuing settlement discussions. Generally, settlement discussions do not constitute good cause justifying modification of a pretrial Scheduling Order. See, e.g., Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Rehrig Pacific Co., No. 11-cv-01273- LJO-BAM, 2013 WL 1164941, *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013). Nevertheless, because the Scheduling Order in this action permits a single thirty-day (30) extension by stipulation of the parties without Court approval (See Doc. 5-1 at ¶ 12) and because resolution of this action without judicial intervention preserves both party and judicial resources, Defendant’s request for an extension of time is GRANTED. Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Opening Brief shall be filed on or before December 8, 2019. All other deadlines in the Court’s Scheduling Order are modified accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: October 23, 2019 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE