JOINT STIPULATION TO FURTHER MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER

TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

TO THE HONORABLE TROY L. NUNLEY, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:

On August 21, 2012, Plaintiffs Janelle Jones and T.J., a minor, ("PLAINTIFFS") filed a complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1988, as well as the general laws of the United States and the State of California against defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Matthew Cates, Mike McDonald, John McClellan, and Ed Simmerson, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive ("DEFENDANTS") [ECF Nos. 1-3.];

On February 7, 2013, PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS filed a Joint Status Report. [ECF No. 20];

On March 22, 2013, PLAINTIFFS filed a First Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 24];

On April 23, 2013, DEFENDANTS filed an answer to the First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 24];

On May 2, 2013, PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS filed an Updated Joint Status Report pursuant to this Court's order. [ECF No. 29];

PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS have exchanged Initial Disclosures, conducted discovery, and are presently continuing to engage in written discovery as well as scheduling depositions;

Based upon PLAINTIFFS' counsel's serious personal and medical issues that arose after the Court's issuance of its Pre-Trial Scheduling Order, as well as additional scheduling complications due to discovery issues, including DEFENDANTS requiring extensive time to provide Electronically Stored Information, and PLAINTIFFS' unavailability for deposition, the parties have jointly sought prior modifications of the Pre-Trial Scheduling Order, which were approved, and Amended Scheduling Orders have been entered on October 18, 2013, March 14, 2014, July 24, 2014, and most recently September 10, 2014 [ECF Nos. 35, 37, 42 & 45];

DEFENDANTS filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on October 2, 2014, which has been fully briefed and taken under submission by the Court. [ECF Nos. 47-50];

WHEREAS PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS have agreed that because a decision on the merits of the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings may substantially impact the scope and substance of the litigation, and that proceeding apace without a decision on the merits may result in a needless expenditure of State and litigant time and resources, additional time is necessary to permit a decision on the merits of DEFENDANTS' motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the parties' subsequent completion of discovery, and filing of dispositive motions, the parties seek a corresponding continuance of the discovery cutoff deadline and other pre-trial deadlines as set forth below:

WHEREAS, the parties agree that the requested modifications to the Pre-Trial Scheduling Order is for good cause and the modifications are in the interests of justice;

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED:

All parties hereto, by and through their respective attorneys of record, have agreed to the modifications to the Pre-Trial Scheduling Order as set forth above, or as otherwise amenable to the Court's calendar.

ORDER

The Court having reviewed the forgoing Stipulation and good cause appearing therefore: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Pre-Trial Scheduling Order be modified as follows:

IT IS SO ORDERED.