ORDER

RICHARD A. JONES, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' motion to extend time to respond to complaint. Dkt. # 21. Plaintiff opposes the extension but offers no substantive argument as to why this motion should be denied. Dkt. # 23. Indeed, courtesy and professionalism often assume agreements on such simple extensions. Based upon the briefing before it, the Court finds that an irresponsible breakdown in civility has occurred between the parties. The Court warns the parties that it has low tolerance for inefficient or juvenile disputes among esteemed attorneys of the bench, and the Court encourages the parties to work with each other in a collegial manner as this matter progresses.

The parties agree that a stay in this matter is appropriate. Dkt. ## 24, 26. The Court agrees. The Court STAYS all deadlines in this matter. The Court notes that Defendants filed their Answer on February 28, 2018, and therefore Defendants' motion is rendered MOOT. The Court ORDERS the parties to file a joint status report no later than sixty (60) days from the date of this Order updating the Court on the estate counsel's progress and whether the matter is ready to proceed.

This Order does not terminate Plaintiff's estate's responsibility to continue to make the court-ordered periodic payments. Those shall continue pursuant to RCW 61.24. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's counsel's request for guidance regarding notice to the Court of compliance with the payment plan. The Court finds periodic notice unnecessary; the Court limits its requirement for notice to only such time payments are made untimely or to such time payments cease.