EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
Defendant Chuck Hagel,
1. On November 27, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief challenging as unconstitutional the 1994 direct ground combat definition and assignment rule, and the Court issued an Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines;
2. On January 24, 2013, the Secretary rescinded the 1994 direct ground combat definition and assignment rule and directed the Military Services to submit plans to him by May 15, 2013, for implementation of this policy change;
3. In light of the above, on January 29, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation with the Court agreeing to meet and confer within three weeks of the deadline for submitting the implementation plans and to allow the Secretary thirty (30) days after that meet and confer to respond to the Complaint;
4. On February 7, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order with the Court to continue the initial case management conference and ADR deadlines, and on February 8, 2013, the Court ordered revision of the initial case management conference and ADR deadlines set forth in the November 27, 2012 Order as follows:
5. Consistent with the parties' agreement to meet and confer within three weeks of the May 15, 2013 deadline for the Military Services' submission of their implementation plans, the parties held a telephone conference on May 30, 2013. During the conference, undersigned counsel for defendant conveyed that the Military Services have submitted their implementation plans to the Secretary and that the plans are pre-decisional and deliberative and therefore will not be disclosed publicly or to Plaintiffs. Undersigned counsel for defendant further conveyed that, consistent with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, section 526, H.R. 4310, the Department of Defense ("DoD") plans to report to Congress in July 2013 on the feasibility of developing gender-neutral occupational standards for military occupational specialties currently closed to women. Counsel for defendant further stated that DoD anticipates that the report will provide some information about the Services' implementation plans.
6. In light of the information provided by counsel for defendant, the parties have agreed to hold a further meet-and-confer by no later than August 20, 2013. The parties have stipulated that the Secretary will have thirty (30) days after this further meet and confer to respond to the Complaint, and a stipulation to that effect has been filed with this Court. As a result, the parties respectfully submit that it is appropriate to continue the Case Management Conference and related deadlines as well.
7. The parties therefore request that the Court continue the scheduling dates established by the February 8, 2013 Order so that they will occur after the parties' meet and confer (which will occur by August 20, 2013). Specifically, the parties request that: the June 15, 2013 deadline for them to meet and confer and to file ADR-related materials be continued to August 30, 2013; that the Initial Case Management Conference be continued from July 18, 2013, to October 3, 2013, which is 14 days after the Secretary's response to the Complaint is due; and that the deadline for the parties' Rule 26(f) Report, initial disclosures or statement of objection in Rule 26(f) Report, and Case Management Statement be continued to September 12, 2013.
ACCORDINGLY, the parties respectfully request that the Court revise the initial case management conference and ADR deadlines set forth in the February 8, 2013 Order as follows:
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES' STIPULATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
IT IS SO ORDERED.