Opinion
2:22-cv-01077-NJK
11-03-2022
ORDER [DOCKET NO. 15]
Nancy J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the Court is an unopposed motion to extend time for the Commissioner to respond to the motion to remand. Docket No. 15. The Commissioner seeks a 60-day extension premised on an unelaborated assertion that counsel needs more time given the existence of competing work obligations. See id. at 2 (referencing “several concurrent deadlines”). That counsel has overloaded herself (or has been overloaded by her employer) is not good cause for an extension, see, e.g., Olesczuk v. Citizens One Home Loans, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 153342, at *6 n.3 (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 2016) (citing Greene v. Alhambra Hosp. Med. Ctr., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 72697, at *3 (D. Nev. June 3, 2015)), and the Court has already explained on numerous occasions that Government attorneys are not exempted from this basic proposition, see, e.g., Burright v. Kijakazi, No. 2:21-cv-01288-NJK, Docket No. 25 (D. Nev. Mar. 22, 2022); Ramirez v. Saul, Case No. 2:19-cv-00978-NJK, Docket No. 21 (D. Nev. Oct. 16, 2019); Gonzalez v. Berryhill, Case No. 2:18-cv-02199-APG-NJK, Docket No. 16 (D. Nev. Apr. 16, 2019); Betten v. Berryhill, Case No. 2:18-cv-00536-KJD-NJK, Docket No. 24 (D. Nev. Dec. 06, 2018). Indeed, requesting an extension premised on a full caseload is particularly puzzling in this context given the already-cushioned briefing schedule for social security matters. Compare Docket No. 13 at 3 (providing 30-day response deadline) with Local Rule 7-2(b) (providing shorter response deadlines for every other type of motion). In short, good cause has not been shown for the extension requested.
As a one-time courtesy to counsel, the Court will allow a 21-day extension. Accordingly, the motion to extend is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The deadline to respond to the motion to remand is extended to December 2, 2022. The Court is not inclined to extend this deadline further.
IT IS SO ORDERED.