STIPULATION AND ORDER THEREON TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

Plaintiffs, Bill Barker, Tab Bachman and William Yingling ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant, Swift Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC ("Swift"), by and through their respective counsel, and pursuant to USDC EDCA Local Rules 143 and 144(d) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b), hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

WHEREAS, on or about September 6, 2016, this Court, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b) and the Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) Conference Statement of the parties, issued a Pretrial Scheduling Order setting the expert disclosure deadline for any expert to be used on class certification for July 27, 2017 (ECF No. 15). On May 31, 2017, the Court entered an Order setting the discovery cut-off for July 31, 2017 pursuant to the parties' stipulation to extend the discovery cut-off for sixty (60) days (ECF No. 22).

WHEREAS, due to scheduling difficulties, the parties were unable to schedule the deposition of Swift pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(B)(6) until August 25, 2017 and agreed to stipulate to extend the discovery cut-off until September 11, 2017 for certain limited purposes as specified in the Stipulation and Order Thereon to Amend Scheduling Order (ECF No. 28) filed July 31, 2017 and granted on August 8, 2017 (ECF No. 29).

WHEREAS, the parties have been engaged in meet and confer communications regarding Plaintiffs' Responses to Request for Production, Set 1, and Plaintiffs' Responses to Interrogatories, Set 1 (the "Plaintiffs' Challenged Discovery Responses"). Plaintiffs have been in the process of reviewing their prior responses to this discovery taking into consideration the concerns raised by Defendant in the meet and confer process but need an additional ten (10) days to provide updated responses to Plaintiffs' Challenged Discovery Responses making these responses due by September 21, 2017.

WHEREAS, as a result of the outstanding discovery issues identified above, the parties stipulate and agree to an extension of the discovery cut-off until September 21, 2017 limited purpose of resolving the ongoing discovery dispute regarding Plaintiffs' Challenged Discovery Responses.

WHEREAS, the parties have acted with diligence in trying to adhere to the current pretrial deadlines but are making this request to the Court for modification of the current scheduling order because absent an extension, the parties will be unable to complete the discovery and, if necessary, to allow Defendant to pursue a discovery motion.

WHEREAS, neither party will be prejudiced by the requested brief extension.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, by their respective counsel, jointly propose and stipulate to the following:

The deadlines in the Pretrial Scheduling Order previously set forth by the Court shall be revised as follows, or set on such other date as the Court determines:49419684804804804804804474941968480

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED and AGREED between the parties that all other provisions of the Pretrial Scheduling Order of September 6, 2016 shall remain in effect. This Stipulation may be signed in counterparts and any facsimile or electronic signature will be valid as an original signature.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, and pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties; the deadlines in the Scheduling Order previously set forth by the Court are revised as follows:

IT IS SO ORDERED.