STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER

ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, Robert Feiger ("Plaintiff"), and Defendants, Natalie Clark, Marlene Robicheaux-Smith, and Antoneya Graves ("Defendants," and together with Plaintiff, "the Parties"), together request that the Court amend the Scheduling Order as follows:

WHEREAS, attorney Tanya Moore of the Mission Law Firm, A.P.C., was appointed pro bono counsel for Plaintiff on April 4, 2017 (Dkt. 73);

WHEREAS, a telephonic Discovery Status Conference is set for August 7, 2017 in this matter;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff's counsel has required time to review the voluminous documents in the case, and meeting and communicating with Plaintiff has taken Plaintiff's counsel significant time due to Plaintiff's incarceration, such that Plaintiff will be unable to conduct the necessary discovery in time to comply with the current deadlines set by this Court's Scheduling Order, dated March 9, 2017 (Dkt. 65);

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES, THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL, HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE to amend the Scheduling Order as follows:

The Parties additionally stipulate to continue the Discovery Status Conference set for August 7, 2017, to a date on or around October 16, 2017 at the Court's convenience.

All other requirements set forth in the Scheduling Order relating to the above shall remain unchanged, including the pre-trial and trial dates.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

The Parties having so stipulated and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Scheduling Order, dated March 9, 2017 (ECF No. 65), is amended as follows:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Telephonic Discovery Status Conference currently set for August 7, 2017, is continued to October 19, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 10 before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. The Parties have leave to appear by phone. To join the conference, each party is directed to call the toll-free number (888) 251-2909 and use Access Code 1024453. Up until two weeks before the discovery conference, the parties may file a motion to compel further discovery responses. One week before the discovery conference, the responding party may file a response to the motion to compel. The motion should include a copy of the request(s) and any response to the request(s) at issue. Unless there is a need for discovery prior to the discovery conference, motions to compel will not be considered until the discovery conference. Motions to compel will not be permitted after the discovery conference absent good cause. The parties should be prepared to address all discovery disputes at the discovery conference.

All other requirements set forth in the Scheduling Order relating to the above shall remain unchanged, including the pre-trial and trial dates.

These revised dates should be considered as firm. No further extensions of these deadlines will be granted absent a showing of good cause and a scheduling conference with the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.