1 2 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5 6 7 TRENTON LYDDEL GABRIEL CASE NO.: 1:21-cv-00390-GSA

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

9 v. EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR

10 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, acting SUMMARY JUDGMENT Commissioner of Social Security, 11

12 Defendant. 13

14 Defendant moves for an unopposed 35-day extension of time to August 4, 2022 to file a 15 response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment due to counsel’s workload. This is 16 Defendant’s first extension. 17 When considering whether good cause exists to modify a scheduling order, courts consider 18 the foreseeability of the impediment to meeting the deadline and the party’s diligence in seeking 19 the extension once it became apparent they could not meet the deadline. See Sharp v. Covenant 20 Care LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012); Ordaz Gonzalez v. Cty. of Fresno, No. 1:18-CV- 21 01558-BAM, 2020 WL 2539287, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2020). The Court has the inherent 22 power to manage its own docket to achieve an orderly and expeditious resolution of cases. Southern 23 California Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2002). 24 Counsel identified reasonably sufficient cause for the extension and sought it sufficiently in 25 advance of the deadline. 26 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s deadline to file a response to Plaintiff’s 27 motion for summary judgment is extended to and including August 4, 2022. All other deadlines 28 1 are adjusted accordingly. 2

3

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: June 24, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28