Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00001/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00001-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

[PROPOSED] ORDER AUTHORIZING FURTHER STIPULATIONS, ETC. 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

Karl S. Lytz (Bar No. 110895) 

Christopher W. Johnstone (Bar No. 242152) 

505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, California 94111-2562 

Telephone: (415) 391-0600 

Facsimile: (415) 395-8095 

Maureen E. Mahoney (Pro Hac Vice) 

555 Eleventh Street NW, Suite 1000 

Washington, D.C. 20004-1304 

Telephone: (202) 637-2200 

Facsimile: (202) 637-2201 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY and 

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY 

(Co-Counsel listed on signature page) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FRESNO DIVISION 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 

and BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES 

COMMISSION, and MICHAEL R. 

PEEVEY, PRESIDENT, GEOFFREY F. 

BROWN, JOHN BOHN, RACHELLE 

CHONG, and DIAN M. GRUENEICH, 

COMMISSIONERS OF THE CALIFORNIA 

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, in their 

official capacities, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 1:07-CV-00001-OWW-DLB 

ORDER AUTHORIZING FURTHER 

STIPULATIONS EXTENDING TIME TO 

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; EXCUSING 

RULE 26 OBLIGATIONS; EXCUSING 

SUBMISSION OF A JOINT SCHEDULING 

REPORT; ADJOURNING MANDATORY 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

/ 

/ 

/ 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:07-cv-00001-OWW -TAG Document 31 Filed 04/11/07 Page 1 of 2
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

The Court hereby authorizes the Parties to stipulate to further extensions of time for 

Defendants to respond to the Complaint for a period not to exceed six months, i.e., further 

extensions may be stipulated up to, but not beyond, October 12, 2007. The Parties are presently 

excused from their obligations for early meeting and information exchange under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 26, and from filing a Joint Scheduling Report. The Mandatory Scheduling 

Conference is adjourned for six months to November 1, 2007. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 9, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

 The Honorable Oliver W. Wanger 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:07-cv-00001-OWW -TAG Document 31 Filed 04/11/07 Page 2 of 2