Opinion
CASE NO. 2:10-CV-02477-KJN
10-12-2011
PAMELA IRENE MOORE, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Ann M. Cerney, SBN: 068748
Attorney at Law
Attorney for Plaintiff
[proposed] ORDER EXTENDING PLAINTIFF'S TIME TO REPLY TO
DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties showing good cause for a requested extension of Plaintiff's time to reply to Defendant's Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment, the request is hereby APPROVED.
Plaintiff shall file his reply on or before October 26, 2011.
However, for a second time in this action, the undersigned is troubled by the timing of the parties' stipulation seeking the court's approval for a time extension. Previously, defendant filed a stipulation on August 15, 2011, the same day as defendant's deadline to file its Opposition/Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 15.) While the undersigned granted that stipulation, he also informed the parties that such timing violates the court's Local Rules. (Dkt. No. 17 at 2 (citing E.D. Local Rule 144(d) ("Counsel shall seek to obtain a necessary extension from the Court or from other counsel or parties in an action as soon as the need for an extension becomes apparent. Requests for Court-approved extensions brought on the required filing date for the pleading or other document are looked upon with disfavor.").) The undersigned's prior order even stated that "[f]uture stipulations suffering from similar deficiencies may not be approved." (Dkt. No. 17 at 2.) Despite the undersigned's prior order, and with no explanation, the parties have again filed a stipulation requesting a time extension on October 5, 2011 — the very day of the deadline at issue. While the undersigned again approves the pending stipulation, counsel are reminded of the need to abide by the applicable Local Rule and are warned that subsequent stipulations filed on the day of the relevant deadline may be summarily denied.
SO ORDERED.
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE