STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DEADLINES IN OCTOBER 28, 2015 SCHEDULING ORDER AND NOVEMBER 16, 2015 MINUTE ORDER

(Doc. 16)

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

Pursuant to Local Rules 143 and 144, Plaintiff DAVID KRUEGER ("Plaintiff") and Defendant MISTRAS GROUP, INC. ("Defendant") (collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby submit this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue Deadlines in October 28, 2015 Scheduling Order and November 16, 2015 Minute Order. This Stipulation is accompanied by the proposed order set forth below, pursuant to Local Rule 143, as well as the supporting declaration of Attorney Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, pursuant to the Court's October 28, 2015 Scheduling Order. For the reasons set forth herein and agreed upon in this stipulation and as supported by the accompanying declaration, good cause exists for granting the requested relief as required by this Court.

Specifically, the Parties stipulate and agree as follows:

Whereas, on May 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed in the California Superior Court for Kern County the above-captioned lawsuit (ECF Doc. No. 1);

Whereas, on June 30, 2015, Defendant removed this case to the United States District Court, Eastern District of California (ECF Doc. No. 1). The matter was originally assigned to District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill;

Whereas, on July 1, 2015, the Court set this matter for an Initial Scheduling Conference on October 28, 2015 before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. (ECF Doc. No. 2);

Whereas, in advance of the October 28, 2015 Initial Scheduling Conference, the Parties filed a Joint Scheduling Report for October 28, 2015 Mandatory Scheduling Conference on October 19, 2015 (ECF. Doc. No. 6). Therein, the Parties set forth the following in relevant part: (1) the summary of the factual and legal contentions set forth in the pleadings of each party, including the relief sought by any party presently before the Court, (2) a summary detailing the uncontested and contested facts, (3) a summary of the legal issues as to which there is no dispute as well as a summary of the disputed legal issues, (4) a discovery plan, (5) settlement, and (6) whether this matter is related to any other pending matters;

Whereas, with respect to the latter issue of related matters, the Parties noted that "[t]his case is related to David Krueger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mistras Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 2:15-cv-01069 (filed E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2015) ("Krueger class action"), which was closed by way of a stipulated request for dismissal without prejudice on September 9, 2015. The Krueger class action was then consolidated with Edgar Viceral, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mistras Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 3:15-cv-02198 (filed N.D. Cal Apr. 13, 2015) ("Viceral"), a putative class and collective action alleging wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California Labor Code and proceeding before the Honorable Edward M. Chen in the Northern District of California." The Parties further noted that "[t]his case is distinct from the Krueger class action and Viceral. It is an individual action, not a putative class action. The case also presents different factual and legal issues. This case arises from the alleged false misrepresentations that Defendant made to Plaintiff to induce him to move from North Dakota to California and the damages he has suffered as a result." Counsel for both Plaintiff and Defendant in the Krueger class action are the same representative attorneys in this matter1;

Whereas, on October 28, 2015, the Court held the scheduling conference in this matter in which all counsel participated (ECF Doc. No. 7). The Court issued its written scheduling order the same day (ECF Doc. No. 8). The October 28, 2015 Scheduling Order sets forth the following case deadlines:

Whereas, on November 5, 2015, the Parties each submitted their Consent to Jurisdiction of United States Magistrate Judge forms (ECF Doc. Nos. 9 and 10). Thereafter, on November 10, 2015, the case was ordered reassigned to Magistrate Judge Thurston (ECF Doc. No. 11);

Whereas, in light of the reassignment of this matter to Magistrate Judge Thurston for all purposes, the Court issued a minute order on November 16, 2015 resetting some of the dates in the October 28, 2015 Scheduling Order on Magistrate Judge Thurston's calendar. In particular, the November 16, 2015 Minute Order reset the following dates:

All other pending dates before Judge O'Neill were vacated;

Whereas, in preparation for the March 7, 2016 Mid-Discovery Status Conference, the Parties filed a Joint Mid-Discovery Status Conference Report on February 29, 2016 (ECF Doc. No. 13). The Parties confirmed the current discovery deadlines and set forth the status of discovery. At that juncture, the Parties had timely exchanged initial disclosures. In addition, they produced numerous documents in their possession to facilitate settlement negotiations. The Parties anticipated engaging in both formal written discovery and depositions.

Whereas, during the progress of the matter before this Court, the Krueger class action and Viceral matters continued to be litigated. On November 24, 2015, the Krueger class action and Viceral matters were successfully joined by way of the filing of the Consolidated First Amended Complaint (Viceral ECF Doc. No. 38). The Parties engaged in extensive formal and informal discovery efforts. Thereafter, the Parties agreed to participate in private mediation before mediator Mark Rudy on April 5, 2016. Following that date, the Parties continued settlement negotiations facilitated by the mediator, ultimately culminating in a settlement. On May 4, 2016, the Parties filed a Notice of Settlement with the Court and requested a briefing schedule for approval of the settlement by the Court (Viceral ECF Doc. No. 59). The deadline for the approval motion to be filed is set for the end of July;

Whereas, the Parties are actively engaged in negotiations in an attempt to expeditiously settle this case. The Parties are hopeful that the matter may resolve soon;

Whereas, nevertheless, the Parties remain committed to concurrently and diligently litigating this case before this Court. Pursuant to the discovery deadlines set forth in the October 28, 2015 Scheduling Order, the Parties are engaging in formal discovery efforts. In particular, Defendant has served formal written discovery requests upon Plaintiff. Plaintiff has also personally served 5 deposition subpoenas for percipient witnesses, served 1 deposition notice for an agent of Defendant who is a percipient witness, and served 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) deposition notice. The depositions require significant coordination because the witnesses are located in a number of states, including (1) California, (2) Pennsylvania, (3) Colorado, (4) Delaware, and (5) New Jersey;

Whereas, the Parties are coordinating with the witnesses to schedule these depositions on mutually agreeable dates as soon as practicable. However, the Parties are unable to meet the current discovery deadlines and take these depositions in advance of the July 22, 2016 non-expert discovery deadline. Numerous issues outside of the Parties' control are significantly delaying the Parties' ability to complete discovery. In particular, one witness central to this litigation underwent and is recuperating from surgery. Her deposition will be scheduled following her recovery and ability to sit for deposition. In addition, another essential witness has been unavailable due to being outside of the continental United States for several weeks for matters to which he needed to attend. His deposition can only be scheduled upon his return;

Whereas, accordingly, Plaintiff's Counsel and counsel for Defendant met and conferred to discuss the current schedule, discovery, motion practice, trial, and the possible resolution of the matter. These meet and confer efforts were productive. However, the Parties recognize the need to continue the current non-expert discovery deadline in order to facilitate discovery and mediation efforts as well as to allow the efficient resolution of this matter;

Whereas, ultimately, the Parties are focused on effectively litigating this matter to avoid generating unnecessary costs and wasting unnecessary resources, including Counsel's and the Court's time;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, with good cause in support, by and between the Parties, through their respective undersigned counsel in the above-captioned litigation, and without waiver or limitation of any of their rights, claims, remedies or defenses in connection with this action, that the current non-expert discovery deadline be continued by approximately 2 ½ months from July 22, 2016 to October 7, 2016. The Parties further stipulate that all other current deadlines remain the same.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATION

Having reviewed the foregoing stipulation and for good cause appearing, the case schedule is amended as follows2:

IT IS SO ORDERED.