STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED], ORDER RESETTING DEADLINES FOR SUBMISSION OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND SETTING DEADLINES FOR DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Sky Astiana, Pamela Rutledge-Muhs and Jay Woolwine, and Defendant Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc., by and through their respective counsel of record and pursuant to Local Civil Rules 6-1(b), 6-2 and 7-12, enter into the following stipulation for an order (1) resetting the deadlines for submission of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and (2) setting a deadline for Dreyer's to produce certain documents responsive to Plaintiffs' discovery requests:

WHEREAS, on March 30, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Consolidated Complaint in this action against Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc. (Dkt. No. 42);

WHEREAS, on July 20, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part Dreyer's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 53);

WHEREAS, on July 24, 2012, the parties submitted a Joint Case Management Statement to the Court in advance of their July 31, 2012 Case Management Conference (Dkt. No. 54);

WHEREAS, on July 26, 2012, Plaintiffs served Defendant their first sets of discovery requests including requests for production of documents and interrogatories;

WHEREAS, on July 31, 2012, the parties attended a Case Management Conference to discuss the litigation of the action with the Court;

WHEREAS, on August 2, 2012, the Court entered a discovery and class certification schedule. Dkt. No. 55. The Court scheduled Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification to be due on January 25, 2013, Defendant's response to the Motion for Class Certification to be due on March 25, 2013, Plaintiffs' reply to the response to the Motion for Class Certification to be due on May 24, 2013, and a hearing on class certification to be held on June 7, 2013. The Court also scheduled a Case Management Conference for February 8, 2013;

WHEREAS, on September 10, 2012, Defendant responded to Plaintiffs' first sets of discovery requests stating, as further detailed in the responses, it would produce documents responsive to 25 of Plaintiffs' requests subject to the entry of a protective order;

WHEREAS, on September 27, 2012, the parties met and conferred regarding Defendant's responses to Plaintiffs' requests;

WHEREAS, on October 1, 2012, the Court entered the parties' stipulated protective order (Dkt. No. 66);

WHEREAS, on October 5, 2012, Defendant produced 285 pages of documents consisting of product labels at issue in this action;

WHEREAS, on November 1, 2012, Defendant produced 137 pages of documents consisting primarily of product labels as well as organizational charts;

WHEREAS, on November 12, 2012, Plaintiffs sent Defendant a letter requesting to meet and confer regarding documents responsive to Plaintiffs' requests that had not yet been produced and which Defendant agreed to produce;

WHEREAS, on November 16, 2012, the Court reset the date for the hearing on class certification to June 6, 2013, the date for Plaintiffs' reply to the response to the motion for class certification to May 23, 2013, and the date for a Case Management Conference to February 7, 2013 (Dkt. No. 70);

WHEREAS, on November 19, 2012, Defendant sent Plaintiffs a letter explaining that Defendant had experienced a number of independent logistical issues that impacted the timing in which it would be able to produce the documents it agreed to produce. Based on these issues, Defendant proposed extending the filing, briefing and hearing schedule for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

WHEREAS, the parties met and conferred regarding the logistical issues that Defendant has faced with its document production, the discovery Plaintiffs deemed necessary for their class certification motion, the timing of production, and on a proposed revised schedule for submission of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification;

WHEREAS, the parties agreed on a schedule for production of documents from Defendant, and a revised schedule for submission of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification to account for the document production time period caused by Defendant's logistical issues while keeping the same hearing date on the Motion for Class Certification previously set by this Court;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-2, the parties may request an order changing a deadline that involves papers required to be filed or lodged with the Court or that would extend deadlines set forth in the Local Rules or Federal rules; and

WHEREAS, this Stipulation is made in good faith and not for purposes of delay.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their respective counsel of record, as follows:

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.