1 2 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5 6 7 REYNALDA DURON, CASE NO.: 1:21-cv-00149-GSA

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

9 v. EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

RESPONSE BRIEF

10 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, acting Commissioner of Social Security, 11 12 Defendant. 13 14 The parties stipulate to a 45-day extension of time from April 25, 2022 to June 9, 2022 for 15 Defendant to file a response brief due to counsel’s workload. This is Defendant’s first extension. 16 When considering whether good cause exists to modify a scheduling order, courts 17 consider the foreseeability of the impediment to meeting the deadline and the party’s diligence in 18 seeking the extension once it became apparent they could not meet the deadline. See Sharp v. 19 Covenant Care LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012); Ordaz Gonzalez v. Cty. of Fresno, 20 No. 1:18-CV-01558-BAM, 2020 WL 2539287, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2020). The Court has 21 the inherent power to manage its own docket to achieve an orderly and expeditious resolution of 22 cases. Southern California Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2002). 23 Counsel identified good cause for the extension and sought it well in advance of the 24 deadline. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s deadline to file a response brief is 25 extended to and including June 9, 2022. All other deadlines are adjusted accordingly.

26 IT IS SO ORDERED.

27 Dated: April 5, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE