STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING CASE SCHEDULE (FIRST REQUEST)

ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.

By and through their counsel of record, the parties seek the Court's approval of the stipulation amending the case schedule as submitted below.

STIPULATION

A. Procedural Background

Defendant removed Plaintiff's putative class action complaint to this Court on June 28, 2016.1 See Dkt. #1. On July 25, 2016, Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for other relief. See Dkt. #13. On July 28, 2016, Plaintiff moved to remand. See Dkt. #15. The Court issued its first and current scheduling order on August 29, 2016. See Dkt. #20.

On October 26, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to remand. See Dkt. #24. The Court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss on January 17, 2017. See Dkt. #24. Defendant subsequently filed its answer to Plaintiff's amended complaint on February 26, 2017. See Dkt. #26. Thus, the claims and defenses genuinely in dispute in this case were identified and put at issue only six months ago.

B. The Current Case Schedule

The Court issued an Order Setting Trial and Related Dates (Dkt. #20) which set certain dates and deadlines for this case as follows:

C. Background on Discovery

The claims and defenses genuinely in dispute in this case for discovery purposes were identified and put at issue when Defendant filed its answer on February 26, 2017. In that context, Plaintiff subsequently served sets of production requests and interrogatories on March 14, 2017. For good causes, including but not limited to Defendant and its counsel needing additional time to obtain, evaluate, and prepare potentially responsive information and documents, Defendant asked for multiple extensions of time to respond. Because of the good causes articulated by Defendant, and to avoid avoidable potentially protracted motion practice, Plaintiff agreed to the extensions. Defendant served its discovery responses on June 28, 2017. Defendant also served documents in response to the production requests in a series of productions, the last of which was on August 18, 2017.

On May 2, 2017, Defendant served Plaintiff with sets of requests for admissions, interrogatories, and production requests. For good causes, including but not limited to Plaintiff and its counsel needing additional time to obtain, evaluate, and prepare potentially responsive information and documents, Plaintiff asked for multiple extensions of time to respond. Because of the good causes articulated by Plaintiff, and to avoid avoidable potentially protracted motion practice, Defendant agreed to the extensions. Plaintiff served its responses to the requests for admissions on August 18, 2017. Plaintiff will be serving responses to Defendant's interrogatories and production requests on August 25, 2017 together with production of documents in response.

In an effort to resolve potential discovery disputes identified by both parties, the parties are preparing to meet and confer soon in a meaningful manner. Plaintiff's recent responses to requests for admission have also identified further discovery that Defendant needs to obtain, and Defendant will be serving an additional set of written discovery on Plaintiff in the coming days.

Meanwhile, the parties have begun to schedule depositions, the first of which is expected to occur in September. At this time, Plaintiff anticipates taking at least two or three depositions of Defendant and its personnel. Additionally, based upon disclosures by Defendant, Plaintiff will be serving deposition subpoenas on at least seven third-parties who have been identified as possibly having some involvement in or knowledge of the transmission of emails that are a material subject matter of Plaintiff's complaint. Defendant likewise plans to take a deposition of Plaintiff and likely third parties. However, the extent of Defendant's additional discovery is contingent on its evaluation of Plaintiff's discovery responses, which it has not had adequate opportunity to do.

D. Stipulated Requests

The local civil rules state, "The judges of this district are committed to assisting the bar and litigants to reduce costs in civil cases. It is the obligation of all counsel, as officers of the court, to work toward the prompt completion of each case and to minimize the costs of discovery." See Local Rules W.D. Wash LCR, Introduction. At all phases of this case, the parties have worked together in the spirit of this rule to balance the interest of a prompt resolution of the case together with the need to minimize the costs of discovery. Likewise under the aegis of this rule, the parties now stipulate to and request amendments to the current case schedule as follows:

The parties also stipulate and request that Plaintiff's pending Motion for Relief from Deadlines and New Case Schedule (Dkt. #31) should be withdrawn and stricken as being now moot.

ORDER

IT SO ORDERED. The Court adopts the parties' stipulation.

1. The case schedule is amended as follows:

2. Plaintiff's pending Motion for Relief from Deadlines and New Case Schedule (Dkt. #31) is stricken as being now moot.