STIPULATED MOTION TO EXTEND MOTIONS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE

ROBERT S. LASNIK, Senior District Judge.

Pursuant to Local Rules 7(d)(1) and 10(g), Plaintiffs and Defendants ("Seattle") submit this stipulated motion to extend the deadlines set forth in the parties' January 15, 2019 Joint Status Report. For the reasons set forth herein, the parties stipulate and agree that the time for Seattle to file its Rule 56(d) motion shall be extended by two weeks, to March 22, 2019, and the opposition and reply deadlines will likewise be extended by two weeks.

1. This case, on remand from the Ninth Circuit, involves a facial challenge to a Seattle ordinance authorizing for-hire drivers to engage in collective negotiations over the terms of their contracts with ride-referral and similar companies (known under the ordinance as "driver coordinators"). Plaintiffs allege that the ordinance violates and is preempted by federal antitrust law.

2. On October 26, 2018, the parties submitted a Joint Status Report and Discovery plan agreeing to defer discovery pending the Court's resolution of a motion for discovery under Rule 56(d) to be filed by Seattle after Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, and agreeing to a scheduling for the filing and briefing of such motions. The parties further agreed to suspend the filing and briefing of such motions while the Seattle City Council considered an amendment to the challenged ordinance.

3. On January 11, 2019, the Mayor signed into law an amendment to the ordinance.

4. On January 15, 2019, the parties submitted a Joint Status Report providing that Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment would be filed by February 15, 2019; Seattle's Rule 56(d) motion would be filed by March 8, 2019; Plaintiffs' opposition to the Rule 56(d) motion would be filed by March 29, 2019; and Seattle's reply in support of the Rule 56(d) motion would be filed by April 12, 2019. The parties' proposed schedule provided that, if Seattle chose not to file a Rule 56(d) motion, its opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment would be due by March 29, 2019.

5. Plaintiffs filed their motion for summary judgment on February 15, 2019.

6. Under the existing briefing schedule, Seattle's Rule 56(d) motion is due on March 8, 2019.

7. Seattle requires additional time to prepare its Rule 56(d) motion. The additional time is necessary because Seattle's counsel has a number of other commitments during the time frame in which its motion must be researched and drafted. These commitments were not apparent to counsel for Seattle when the parties agreed to the proposed schedule in January, but make it impossible for Seattle to prepare its Rule 56(d) motion within the allotted time.

8. No party will be prejudiced by the proposed extension.

9. Accordingly, the parties stipulate to the proposed revised schedule for briefing and filing of motions:

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.