Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 11, 2021

Parker v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Katharine Parker
Docket
1:20-cv-08419
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
7
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Travis Parker v. Acting Commissioner, Judge Parker ordered a 45-day briefing extension after Parker’s lawyer described pandemic-related workload pressures.

Who this affects

Travis Parker and the lawyers handling the briefing in his Social Security case; the requested extension affected the schedule for Parker’s filings and the government’s response.

What happened

In Travis Parker v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Parker’s lawyer asked Judge Katharine H. Parker for a 45-day extension to serve Parker’s portion of a joint filing and prepare his motion challenging the Social Security decision. The request said Parker’s portion was due December 17, 2021, and that the government’s lawyer agreed to the request.

The lawyer said this was Parker’s second extension request. The stated reasons included delays in producing administrative records during the COVID-19 pandemic, a large increase in the firm’s federal-court workload, and the need for additional time to prepare the motion properly. The attached declaration described the firm’s caseload and staffing.

The document ends with Judge Parker’s “SO ORDERED” notation dated December 11, 2021, following the request. The opinion text does not separately state the revised deadlines or use the word “granted.”

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Parker v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-08419
Judge
Katharine Parker
Date
Dec. 11, 2021

Background

This document is a letter-motion requesting additional time in Parker’s Social Security case. Parker’s counsel asked for a 45-day extension to serve Parker’s portion of a joint stipulation and to prepare Parker’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, a request asking the court to decide the case based on the existing administrative record and written submissions. The letter states that Parker’s portion of the joint stipulation was due December 17, 2021. Some portions of the proposed schedule are incomplete or unclear in the provided text.

The letter says this was Parker’s second request for an extension. It refers to an earlier extension granted on October 13, 2021. Parker’s counsel said the firm faced multiple simultaneous deadlines because of pandemic-related delays in producing administrative records and the later release of a large number of records and agency decisions. The government’s counsel consented to the request.

Supporting declaration

Howard D. Olinsky, identified as managing partner of the Olinsky Law Group, submitted a declaration. It describes the firm’s federal Social Security caseload, the Social Security Administration’s pandemic-related limits on building access, delays in producing certified administrative records, increased briefing deadlines, and the firm’s efforts to hire more attorneys. The declaration also discusses cases involving arguments based on a Supreme Court decision concerning the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but the present document does not decide those issues.

Ruling

The document concludes with “SO ORDERED” and is signed by United States Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on December 11, 2021. The provided text does not separately state “granted,” and it does not clearly display all revised deadlines. The order therefore records the court’s approval of the requested extension through the “SO ORDERED” notation, without a merits decision on Parker’s Social Security claim.

The authoritative version

Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.