STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF EVIDENTIARY HEARING

DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

The parties in the above captioned case have met and conferred and have agreed to continue the evidentiary hearing in the matter, presently scheduled June 8, 2015, and jointly request this Court grant their request.

April 31, 2015, the reply brief in United States v Broadnax was filed in the Ninth Circuit, and on April 14, 2015, undersigned participated in oral in the matter of Seeboth v Mayberg in that same Court. Both cases required considerable work and preparation prior to those dates. Then, on April 22, 2015 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal short set oral argument in the matter of Holmes v Johnson, USCA 14-15530 for June 11, 2015. In fact, appellant's reply brief had not been filed and will not be filed until the end of this week.

Respondent's counsel has faced similar scheduling and work conflicts. This past week the California Supreme Court scheduled argument in Los Angeles on June 2, 2015. He will, in his words, "be wrapped up in preparing for that for the remainder of the month."

In addition, the parties agree that a joint interview of the trial judge should be accomplished, if possible. Moreover, respondent has agreed to facilitate an interview with the prosecutor in this matter. Neither interview has occurred because of scheduling problems. For these reasons the parties request a continuance of the evidentiary hearing.

Both counsel are available August 17, 2015 and August 23, 2015 for the evidentiary hearing. Should the Court wish another date, the parties shall of course accommodate the Court's schedule.

Accordingly, it is respectfully requested by both parties that the evidentiary hearing date be moved to either August 17, 2015, August 23, 2015, or a date more convenient to the Court.

IT IS SO STIPULATED

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the evidentiary hearing in the above-captioned matter is continued to August 17, 2015.