TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
Now come Plaintiff Progressive Casualty Insurance Company ("Progressive"), Defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Pacific State Bank ("FDIC-R"), and Defendants Michael L. Dalton, Harold Hand, Kathleen M. Verner, Patricia A. Hatton, Maxwell M. Freeman, Yoshikazu Mataga, George M. Schofield, Rick Simas, Gary A. Stewart, Russell Munson, Steven Kikuchi, Steve Rosso, Justin Garner, Laura Maffei, and Linda Ogato (the "Ds & Os" and together with Progressive and FDIC-R, the "Parties"), by and through their undersigned counsel, and hereby stipulate as follows:
On May 14, 2014, FDIC-R filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff Progressive Casualty Insurance Company to Produce ESI and to Comply with the ESI Order. (Docket Entry ("DE") 109). As a result of subsequent discussions between Progressive and FDIC-R and subsequent developments in other matters involving similar issues, the Parties stipulate as follows:
1. Progressive shall have until June 2, 2014, to produce the 565,000 "hit" documents culled from the use of the search terms in this and four other cases
2. Progressive may apply privilege filters to the 565,000 documents and withhold documents identified as more likely privileged as a result of application of privilege filters. However, Progressive shall serve FDIC-R with a privileged document log which fully complies with Rule 26(b)(5)(A) for any documents withheld or redacted on the basis of privilege. Progressive shall produce the first privilege log for one-third of the total documents withheld or redacted by June 19, 2014, the second privilege log by July 17, 2014, and the final privilege log by August 14, 2014.
3. FDIC-R withdraws its Motion to Compel Plaintiff Progressive Casualty Insurance Company to Produce ESI and to Comply with the ESI Order (DE 109) without prejudice to FDIC-R's right to raise any issues regarding the sufficiency of Progressive's production or its compliance with this Stipulation.
4. The Amended Scheduling Order (DE 108) provides that the schedule may be modified upon a showing of "good cause." Good cause exists in order to allow adequate time to complete the ESI review and production as set forth above and other discovery. The Parties therefore stipulate to the following modification of the current schedule:
The parties propose no change to the remaining deadlines, including the pretrial deadlines and trial date.
5. The parties respectfully request that the Court enter an order to this effect.