(SS) Huff v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JARED WAYNE HUFF, CASE NUMBER: 1:20-cv-00821-GSA Plaintiff, 8 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF v. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE BRIEF 9 DEADLINE KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

14 The parties stipulate to a 30-day extension of time from September 30, 2021 to October 29, 2021 for Defendant to file a response brief because counsel was newly assigned to this case after the former counsel of record left the office. This is Defendant’s second extension in this case and the first for this deadline.

18 The Scheduling Order allows for a single extension of thirty days by the stipulation of the parties. Doc. 7 at 3. Beyond the single extension by stipulation, “requests to modify [the scheduling] order must be made by written motion and will be granted only for good cause.” Id. 21 When considering whether good cause exists to modify a scheduling order, courts consider the foreseeability of the impediment to meeting the deadline and the party’s diligence in seeking the extension once it became apparent they could not meet the deadline. See Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012); Ordaz Gonzalez v. Cty. of Fresno, No. 1:18-CV- 01558-BAM, 2020 WL 2539287, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2020). The Court has the inherent power to manage its own docket to achieve an orderly and expeditious resolution of cases. Southern California Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2002).

28 Counsel’s recent assignment to the matter is good cause for an extension, which counsel sought well in advance of the September 30 deadline.

2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s deadline to file a response brief is extended to and including October 29, 2021. All other deadlines are adjusted accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 Dated: September 22, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE