ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.

The parties to this action have submitted a stipulation for an order compelling the California Department of Justice ("DOJ") to produce certain information sought by a subpoena. ECF No. 110. The DOJ has not signed the stipulation nor has it submitted any filing informing the court as to its position on the matter. Further, the parties' stipulation indicates that the California Department of Justice has objected to the production of the information, but has informed the parties that it will comply with a court order requiring production.

In light of the objection and the absence of any filing on behalf of the DOJ on the matter, and subject to an approval by the district judge of an extension of the discovery cutoff date, the parties shall file, pursuant to E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230, an appropriate motion to compel compliance with the subpoena and notice it before the undersigned for hearing. The motion shall be served on the California Attorney General. As required by Local Rule 230(c), the California Attorney General shall file either an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion.

Further, it is recommended that the discovery cutoff date of December 18, 2015, be extended for the limited purpose of resolving this matter.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).