JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF DEADLINE TO FILE STIPULATED FORM OF JUDGMENT AND/OR MOVE FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF JOINT STIPULATION

CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge

JOINT STIPULATION

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiff Kathleen A. Stout and Defendant Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company and Amazon.com Holding, Inc. Long Term Disability Plan hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

1. On August 28, 2013, the Court issued its Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Judgment and Granting in part Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Judgment (the "Order"). Doc. #62. The Order stated that Defendants should calculate the past benefits under the "own occupation" standard plus prejudgment interest thereon, and stated that the parties must file a stipulated form of judgment within 21 days of the Order, or September 18, 2013. Doc. #62 (24:6-14). The Order stated as follows regarding prejudgment interest: "Prejudgment interest shall be calculated "at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding the date of the judgment." 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a); see also Blankenship v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 486 F.3d 620, 628 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that "`the interest rate prescribed for post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 is appropriate for fixing the rate of pre-judgment interest'" (citations omitted))." The Order also stated that if a dispute concerning the amount due arises and cannot be resolved without the Court's intervention, the parties may move for appropriate relief. Id. (24:15-19).

2. On September 13, 2013, Plaintiff's counsel sent a letter to Defendants' counsel with calculations of the past benefits due and prejudgment interest, citing a prejudgment interest rate other than the rate available under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 that Plaintiff contends is available according to Ninth Circuit precedent in Blankenship v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston, 486 F.3d 620, 628 (9th Cir. 2007).

3. On September 16, 2013, Plaintiff's counsel and Defendants' counsel met and conferred via telephone, and Defendants' counsel requested that the September 18, 2013 deadline set forth in the Order be extended 10 days to September 28, 2013, to enable Defendant Hartford to fully evaluate Plaintiff's proposed prejudgment interest rate that Plaintiff contends is available under Blankenship and meet and confer with Plaintiff's counsel regarding that issue.

4. Good cause exists to extend the September 18, 2013 deadline to file a stipulated form of judgment and/or move for appropriate relief in the Court's Order, so that the parties can fully meet and confer regarding the calculation of the prejudgment interest rate to determine if the amount due can be resolved without the Court's intervention.

5. WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that the Court continue the Order's September 18, 2013 deadline to file a stipulated form of judgment and/or move for appropriate relief to September 28, 2013.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation above, and with good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the September 18, 2013 deadline to file a stipulated form of judgment and/or move for appropriate relief, as set forth in the Court's August 28, 2013 Order (Doc. #62), be continued to September 28, 2013.