Opinion
Case No.: 1:10-cv-02378 JLT.
October 5, 2011
ORDER GRANTING SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. 15)
Parties have filed a second stipulation by counsel to extend the period of time for Defendant to a responsive brief. (Doc. 15). Defendant's counsel seeks an extension of thirty days due to "additional unexpected and unavoidable work . . . between the time this Court granted the Commissioner's first extension and October 7, 2011 as well as missed work due to an injury and impending previously scheduled leave." (Doc. 15 at 1). Previously, Defendant's counsel sought an extension of thirty days due to her work obligations, including a "heavy appellate workload" and "several unavoidable meetings." (Doc. 13 at 1-2).
Notably, the Scheduling Order states a "[r]equest for modification of this briefing schedule will not routinely be granted." (Doc. 7-1 at 4) (emphasis in original). A scheduling order "is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded without peril." Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). The deadlines are considered "firm, real and are to be taken seriously by parties and their counsel." Shore v. Brown, 74 Fed.R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1260, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94828 at *7 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2009). Though counsel seem to expect extensions to be granted routinely due to an unanticipated amount of work, the Court will grant the extension of time requested. However, absent a showing of exceptional good cause, no further extensions will be granted in this action.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Defendant SHALL file a responsive brief on or before November 7, 2011.
IT IS SO ORDERED.