JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO OBJECT TO THE INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., District Judge.

Subject to the approval of the Court, Plaintiff BNSF Railway Company ("BNSF" or "Plaintiff") and Defendant Julie Su ("Su" or "Defendant") by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby enter into the following stipulation to extend the deadline to object to the dates contained in the Court's Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order. The purpose of this stipulation is to promote efficiency and judicial economy by coordinating the deadline to file objections to the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order with the deadline for Defendant to Answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. The reasons to grant this request are as follows:

1. On November 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed an action for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in this Court, seeking a declaratory judgment that California's laws and regulations pertaining to, among other things, rest periods do not apply to railroad employees. (Doc. No. 1.)

2. On November 2, 2017, the Court issued its Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order. The Order states that it will be "final without further order of the Court unless objection are filed within sixty (60) days of service on all defendant(s)." (Doc. No. 3.)

3. On November 14, 2017, BNSF served Defendant with the summons, Complaint, and Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order, among other documents. (Doc. No. 5.)

4. On December 6, 2017, Defendant and BNSF submitted a joint stipulation requesting that Defendant's deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint be extended to and including February 5, 2018. (Doc. No. 8.)

5. On December 11, 2017, the Court issued an Order extending Defendant's deadline to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint to not later than February 5, 2018. (Doc. No. 10.)

6. Pursuant to the Local Civil Rule 144(a), the parties agree that an extension of the deadline to object to the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order is necessary to permit Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint in advance of the Rule 26(f) conference. If the dates in the preliminary scheduling order become final, the Rule 26(f) conference must be held by January 16, 2018 more than two weeks before Defendant's deadline to answer.

7. Accordingly, the parties submit that good cause exists to grant their request to extend the deadline to object to the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order from 60 days of service on all defendants to 14 days after Defendant files an answer.

8. Therefore, the parties hereby jointly stipulate and request that the Court enter an order extending the deadline for the parties to object to the Initial Scheduling Order to 14 days after Defendant files an answer.

ORDER

Having considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing, the parties' deadline to object to the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order shall be extended to not later than 14 days after Defendant files an answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.