Opinion
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
On November 2, 2015, plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment from October 30, 2015, to November 2, 2015. ECF No. 17. Plaintiff filed her request as a stipulation between the parties, explaining that the extension was needed because of an illness in the family. Id . The next day, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 18. On the same day, plaintiff also filed a request to withdraw her purported stipulation for extension of time. ECF No. 19. Plaintiff's request states that "[d]ue to a communication mistake within counsel's office, plaintiff's Counsel inadvertently filed" the request as a stipulation. Id . At the same time, plaintiff renewed the request for an extension of time that would render the late-filed summary judgment motion timely. Id.
Also on November 3, 2015, defendant the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner") filed a response to plaintiff's stipulation. ECF No. 20. In the Commissioner's response, she states that plaintiff emailed her on November 2, 2015, requesting that she agree to the foregoing extension of time. Id . Before the Commissioner had a chance to respond, plaintiff filed a stipulation claiming to have received authorization for the extension from her. Id . When the Commissioner's counsel informed plaintiff's counsel the next morning that the Commissioner would not agree to an extension, plaintiff's counsel said he would withdraw the stipulation. Id . The Commissioner argues that plaintiff's request for an extension should be denied because it is her second request for an extension, and her repeated delays have burdened the Commissioner. Id.
The court finds that despite any burden plaintiff's extensions may have caused the Commissioner, plaintiff has shown good cause for an extension. Plaintiff's counsel is cautioned, however, that he may not submit documents purporting to be stipulations between the parties before obtaining authorization from the Commissioner. Should an unauthorized stipulation be filed again, counsel will be sanctioned.
In accordance with the foregoing, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 19, is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff's November 2, 2015, motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 18, is deemed timely;
3. The Commissioner must file an opposition or cross-motion for summary judgment by December 2, 2015; and
4. Plaintiff must file a reply, if any, by December 23, 2015.