JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR (1) JOINTLY PROPOSING A POST-CLAIM CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULING ORDER AND(2) DEFENDANTS' FILING OF ANY AMENDED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND/OR COUNTERCLAIMS (First Request)

CARL W. HOFFMAN, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiffs ESCO Corporation and ESCO Canada Ltd. (collectively "Plaintiffs") and Defendants Cashman Equipment Company, Caterpillar Global Mining LLC, Caterpillar Inc., Raptor Mining Products, (USA), Inc. and Raptor Mining Products, Inc. (collectively "Defendants"), through their undersigned counsel of record, and pursuant to L.R. 6-1 and 7-1, hereby agree and stipulate to the Court's entry of an Order providing that: (1) the parties shall have until March 18, 2016, to submit a proposed Post-Claim Construction Scheduling Order, and (2) that Defendants shall have until March 31, 2016, to re-plead any of the claims or defenses that were dismissed or struck in the Court's recent Order, but where the Court granted Defendants leave to amend. (Dkt. 200).

Further to the Court's Order holding in abeyance all deadlines in this case (with the exception of the Post-Claim Construction Settlement Conference) pending the Court's resolution of certain Motions (Dkt No. 172), and the Court's subsequent resolution of these Motions (Dkt. No. 200), a Proposed Post-Claim Construction Scheduling Order is currently due on February 5, 2016. Further, the Court's Order (Dkt. No. 200) began the time period where Defendants must re-plead any of their dismissed claims and struck defenses. The parties have now agreed to extend both of these deadlines.

There is good cause for this stipulation. For example, the parties need to evaluate the scope and strength of their various claims and defenses given the Court's recent Order, which dismissed numerous claims and declined to reconsider any of the Court's prior patent claim constructions. Continuing these deadlines would therefore promote judicial economy by preventing the need for the parties, and the Court, to expend time and effort on issues that may later be dropped from the case. Further, the extension will allow the parties to determine an efficient timetable for resolving any remaining issues in the case, if appropriate. Moreover, this extension is not requested for any improper purpose or delay. Finally, the parties have not previously requested extensions regarding the either of these deadlines.

IT IS SO ORDERED.