STIPULATION & ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), Local Rule 143, and Dkt. No. 115, the parties, through their counsel of record, jointly request a modification of the December 3, 2015 Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 78, for a 45-day extension of the deadline to complete expert discovery and a 49-day extension of the deadline to hear dispositive motions.

Currently, the expert discovery cut-off is April 29, 2016, and the last day to hear dispositive motions is June 17, 2016. The parties jointly propose that these dates be modified so that the expert discovery cut-off is June 13, 2016, and the last day to hear dispositive motions is August 5, 2016. The parties submit that this modest extension should not require the alteration of any other dates in the scheduling order, including the scheduled trial date of January 9, 2017.

A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and by leave of Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (describing the factors a court should consider in ruling on such a motion). In considering whether a party moving for a schedule modification has good cause, the Court primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee's notes of 1983 amendment). "The district court may modify the pretrial schedule `if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.'" Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee notes of 1983 amendment).

Good cause exists to grant this stipulation because a settlement conference is scheduled before Magistrate Judge Newman on May 2, 2016, Dkt. No. 114, and, at the suggestion of the Court, the parties have mutually agreed to put off completion of expert depositions until after that date. The settlement conference was originally scheduled for April 1, 2016, with expert depositions scheduled to take place subsequently if the case did not settle, but the settlement conference was continued in order to accommodate Plaintiff's mental health considerations. Dkt. No. 113. The parties timely disclosed expert reports on February 26, 2016, and expert depositions are the only outstanding expert discovery in this case.1 The parties have already ascertained expert availability and agreed upon deposition dates that will allow them to promptly complete expert discovery by the proposed June 13, 2016 deadline if the case does not settle on May 2, 2016. The parties believe the completion of expert discovery will aid the Court in considering any dispositive motions, and therfore propose that the hearing date for any such motions be extended from June 17, 2016 to August 5, 2016 so that the parties can utilize expert reports and testimony.

The parties submit that they have diligently pursued expert discovery in this case, and seek this modest extension following the suggestion of the Court and the re-scheduling of the settlement conference. The parties have mutually agreed to postpone expert depositions until after the May 2, 2016 settlement conference in order to avoid any unnecessary costs to the parties if the case does settle.

The parties therefore propose the following modification to the Scheduling Order:

The parties do not seek an extension of any other deadlines.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

Based on the parties' stipulated request and good cause appearing:

1. The parties' request to modify the scheduling order is GRANTED.

2. The expert discovery cut-off is re-set for June 13, 2016 and the deadline for hearing dispositive motions is re-set for August 12, 2016. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.