Martinez v. Social Security Administration

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO TRISTAN HOLLY MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. No. 1:24-cv-0154 DLM CAROLYN COLVIN, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART EXTENSION OF TIME THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s third motion for an extension of time. (Doc. 26.) Defendant seeks a one-month extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s motion. (See id.) The Court granted Defendant an extension of time to complete the certified administrative record and then another extension due to a heavy workload. (Docs. 11; 25.)

Plaintiff was given two extensions of time to file a motion to remand and then a stay due to a medical emergency on the part of Plaintiff’s counsel. (Docs. 14; 16; 18.) Defendant now seeks another 30-day extension to file a response brief to Plaintiff’s motion on the same basis of a heavy workload. (See Doc. 26 at 2–3.) An attorney’s large caseload does not ordinarily constitute a reason to justify multiple extensions to a Court’s scheduling order. See, e.g., Gonzales v. Berryhill, No. 18-CV-00437 REB, 2018 WL 3391946, at *3 (D. Colo. July 12, 2018) (declining a request for equitable tolling and noting that an attorney’s heavy caseload is not an extraordinary circumstance sufficient to disregard applicable rules).

The Court will GRANT IN PART this final request for an extension and give Defendant a one-week extension of time to respond. The Court will likely not grant any further requests, as further extensions will impact the Court’s own schedule and deadlines.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1) The motion for extension of time is GRANTED IN PART (Doc. 26); 2) Defendant shall file its response brief in this matter no later than February 12, 2025; 3) Plaintiff may file a reply no later than 14 days after Defendant files a response.

. Zz pews L Meg DAMIAN L. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE